Some thoughts on Mustang....

It strikes me that the '05 Mustang's front McPherson strut and rear Panhard rod live rear axle suspension is amazingly ( maybe even suspiciously), similar to the 3rd gen F-car. Of course it's all bolted on to a far more rigid DEW substructure. I really wonder how much money was actually saved when they threw away the LS/S-Type/ T-Bird, SLA front suspension and multi-link IRS?

Here are some thought provoking comments:

Hau Thai-Tang on why Mustang gets a live rear axle-----

"That's mainly to keep down costs. It's also partly because the majority of Mustang owners don't care what kind of suspension they have, and partly to serve the street racers and quarter-milers who love a live axle's simplicity and cheap interchangeability."

And this from Phil Martens, Group VP of product creation--------

"When I first got here ( in March 2002),I made the decision to put the solid axle back in. To go out and immediately disband what people know this car to be, which is the best high performance sports car for under $20,000, is a mistake."


I'm gonna tell you guys something.......

If that were Dave Hill and Bob Lutz saying that about the next Camaro....I'd be so pissed off, I'd be ready to blow a head gasket.

It's sad, :shame: It just shows how far out of touch with the customers these engineers are...
At least they didn't pull the Mustang off Ford's rouster...:rolleyes:

Let your head gasket blow man.:D

When they dropped the SLA from the front it reduced man hours.Part costs and a simpler assembly proccess.Not only that it is proven struts can handle with the best of them on a "street car".
2000 Cobra R/Z06 very close in the handling departent.And the Cobra was heavier if Im not mistaken.(just and example)

Im not trying to say one is better then the other Im just saying both are options.Speaking of the rear suspension.You can see there is one part thats the same design.Panard bar,Nothing more.
One other thing.I hope it doesnt ride like a Camaro!!!!!:barf:

Yeah, some people hate percision handling, and responsive suspensions...:D
They're better of buying Mustangs...:)

Originally posted by guess who
Im not trying to say one is better then the other Im just saying both are options.

A straight front axle with leaf springs is also an option......but it doesn't make it better.

Aftermarket vendors which Ford works closely with may have balked as well. The car will handle better than the current car, but lets face it, the Mustang has never been meant as this type of car.

Originally posted by scott9050
Aftermarket vendors which Ford works closely with may have balked as well. The car will handle better than the current car, but lets face it, the Mustang has never been meant as this type of car.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to the first road test of a Mustang GT. I get the impression it will perform like an LT1 4th gen. Maybe alittle faster in the 1/4 mile...but probably not a canyon carver.

Although the Cobra will get the CBS IRS......I'm still wondering (as I posted in another thread), if a 500 hp Cobra could lap Nurbugring faster than a 400+ hp 5th gen Z/28.

Ford actually went out and ASKED enthusiasts what they wanted to see in the car. Among other venues I'm sure, they came to NMRA and FFW races. In fact, I was was asked down at a FFW weekend race in Gainseville a few years ago SPECIFICALLY about what I'd like to see for a rear suspension. IRS or live axle...guess which one I picked? :)

I like the decision. Makes sense for those of us of the non-road race variety (you're welcome to use the redneck label if you like :) ).

Again I'll repeat my mantra of a well-designed IRS shouldn't give drag racers too many problems. Unfortunately the Camaro won't shed it's "low-tech" image until it does some things to help itself, and IRS across the board is one of those things.

As a Mustang owner myself, I too was for the Live Rear Axle on the base and entry V8 cars. These cars are where the unwealthy individual strives to create his own weekend warrior/daily driver. I agree with Mark that a correctly designed and applied IRS shouldn't be a huge hindrance to the drag racer - but at what additional costs? There is NO WAY you can pull the Ring and Pinion swap, add roll-overs or traction control links, and narrow the axles for tub/slicks on an IRS system like you can with a Ford 8.8 or 9" for anywhere close to the same money - NO WAY.

IRS costs more - PERIOD. It therefore makes perfect sense that those who know what it is, and are savvy enough to enjoy it's benefits, should be willing to pay the premium that it requires. Hence, putting the IRS system on the upscale cars like Cobra is a perfect solution.

Also, the typical 16-24 year old high school or college kid that is likely the buyer/driver of the base V6 car couldn't tell you what IRS means, much less feel the difference in ride quality. The kids are just ecstatic to have a car at all, and "look cool" in a Mustang as opposed to dad's ol' Granada or something. And again, these kids don't have the extra $ching$ to lay out for un-necessary things like IRS.

For the GT and Base cars, I think they did the right think for the time being - and I have no problems with it at all.
Now, if a BOSS 302 were to be offered, we'd have to have a talk about IRS because that car SHOULD be a corner-carving wonder - they were never intended to be drag cars - that was Mach 1 work in the old days. Likewise, any SVT Cobra should be IRS equipped, as should the Roush and Saleen offerings unless ordered for strip duty IMO.

FWIW - I do see Charlie's point about being miffed. I wouldn't have said anything about "mainly to keep down costs" - that implies they did it to be cheap. If cheaper was a side effect of giving the public what they want... GREAT, but why not just say "we gave them what they asked for" and keep your pie-hole shut about the costs? A subjective case of saying too much if you ask me.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
Again I'll repeat my mantra of a well-designed IRS shouldn't give drag racers too many problems. Unfortunately the Camaro won't shed it's "low-tech" image until it does some things to help itself, and IRS across the board is one of those things.
There is some validity to this - assuming the IRS itself is strong enough to stand up to the abuse that is dished out by more than the "Friday night test-n-tune" folks. One benny with the IRS is the potential increase in traction that can be reaped by both rear tires staying planted better as the body tries to twist under hard load.

That said, the IRS has some significant downfalls. Chief among them is the added weight, relative complexity, and cost. I believe it to be generally accepted that those issues - and others - offset the benefits.

Again....this is from a drag racing perspective only, and ignores other IRS benefits, including better handling, road manners, etc.

Personally I don't mind the Mustang GT to have a solid rear axle. if it was up to me I'd make the IRS and option to be had on any Mustang if the owner wants to buy it. Keeping the solid rear as an standard part and making the IRS an option would satisfy everyone. And when i say IRS I mean a true multi-link unit designed for the car from the begining. This would be a big hit for lots of 03-04 Cobra owners who've had to make the swap on their own. Now the engineering and packaging not to mention production problems would probably keep this from ever happening.

Now on the front suspension getting rid of the SLA setup from the Lincoln LS was a mistake. The 05 Mustang deserves the best Ford can give it and strut just isn't it.

It is time that solid rear axles in cars went the way of 8-track tape players and vinyl seating.

It can't cost that much more, since every front drive car out there has it (yes, I know it is a bit different, but not that much different)

Again, Corvette seems to do just fine with it at the strip... and Corvette has had IRS since 1963!

I have never heard of a Corvette owner complaining about traction issues or rear end "hop" from thier IRS. Also, i have never heard of any of them complain about a the strength of the rear. In all the high dollar/high horse power aftermarket Corvettes, they never touch the rear and this includes cars like the TT Lingenfelter Vettes. So I think it can be done right without many comprimises.

If the cost and development can be spread throughout a few vehicles, then I wouldn't think the cost would be that much of an issue. Also, if the Camaro has an IRS, then it is something over the comparable Mustang models and then the top level Camaro will have the IRS to compete with the Cobra in the handling department.

There is no doubt that the Vette IRS is much better than what has so far shown itself in the Mustang (and probably always will be better). However, go do a search on some of the Vette Forums and you will indeed find some of those that drag race do have wheel hop problems. Nothing like the 99-03 Cobras - but it is there. Also, you'll find some breakage issues. I have personally seen a Vette spit out a halfshaft at Cecil County (Nov 2002). Granted, it was a low 11/high 10 second car - but its still a weak point.

About Camaro/Mustang with the IRS....that's a few years away. It is possible that the GT will be offered with the IRS at that point, as Team Mustang said the chassis was designed "with the IRS in mind", or words to that effect.

Speaking only for me....I hope to always be able to get a live axle, but time will tell. :)

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Also, if the Camaro has an IRS, then it is something over the comparable Mustang models and then the top level Camaro will have the IRS to compete with the Cobra in the handling department.

And I would hammer that point home in marketing.

Hau Thai-Tang is probably right when he says most people who buy Mustang don't know or care what kind of suspension is back there. I'd say alot of Camaro buyers are the same. Not to sound sexist.....but I've never heard a female Mustang or Camaro buyer ever give any indication that they had any awareness whatsoever which or even that a suspension even existed under their cars.

But if you hammer it home with proper marketing.....

"CAMARO WITH STANDARD INDEPENDENT REAR SUSPENSION.......NOT AVAILABLE ON BASE MUSTANG"

Those same people may not know what it is.....but they'll know that it's something "better" that Camaro has and Mustang doesn't.

BTW, just my personal take on the live rear axle thing------- I think Ford kept it on the Mustang to save afew nickels, and they breathed a sigh of relief when their research indicated that they could say the drag racers made them do it.

I don't think it's the drag racers that wanted the front struts though.

I'd say that is a distinct possibility.

Actually, I don't have much of a problem with Ford penny pinching the Mustang's suspension.

I'm just saying that in the past....Camaro product planners have looked at their cross town rival and figured..."Why push the envelope....Mustang doesn't have it".

I just don't want the Camaro team getting any cheapskate ideas.:)

Camaro would probably be better off with IRS. I'm all for it if the F-car IRS could actually hold power. I tend to think that yes, the Vette's IRS is pretty good, however I cant help but think that the Camaro version would be cheaper and weaker due to the price of the car. Who knows right now anyway? This is still a couple years away. On the other hand I'd prefer a live rear axle due to simplicity and cost but IRS is something I'd live with and welcome if done right. Either way Camaro needs a rear end that is FAR stronger than the sissy 10-bolts we got stuck with.

surprisingly, I don't have as much a problem with the Mustang having a solid axel as I thought I would. as long as they designed and engineered it properly so its a major enough improvement over the current one, it should be fine for most people who buy it. after all, if the Mustangs get too expensive, either Ford won't be able to afford to sell them or the public won't be able to afford to buy them.

I can also understand the move to struts up front. the 4.6L is a bigger engine than the 4.0L V8 and the 3.0L V6 that go into the LS, Type-S and T-bird. SLA eats a pretty big chunk out of the engine bay. struts are, on the other hand, compact by comparison. when asked if you want a bigger engine or SLA, I'd bet for most of you it would be a no-braner. so it was too for Ford.

I do disagree though on the general public not being able to tell the difference in ride quality. they may not realise what it is that makes up the difference, but they DO perceive it. if that weren't true then we WOULD still have solid front axels with leaf springs.

Originally posted by morb|d

I can also understand the move to struts up front. the 4.6L is a bigger engine than the 4.0L V8 and the 3.0L V6 that go into the LS, Type-S and T-bird. SLA eats a pretty big chunk out of the engine bay. struts are, on the other hand, compact by comparison. when asked if you want a bigger engine or SLA, I'd bet for most of you it would be a no-braner. so it was too for Ford.



I don't know about that. Ford managed to fit that big honkin' V10 into the Shelby Concept without resorting to struts.

Ford replaced DEW's SLA suspension with struts on the Mustang purely for cost.

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
Ford actually went out and ASKED enthusiasts what they wanted to see in the car. Among other venues I'm sure, they came to NMRA and FFW races. In fact, I was was asked down at a FFW weekend race in Gainseville a few years ago SPECIFICALLY about what I'd like to see for a rear suspension. IRS or live axle...guess which one I picked? :)

I like the decision. Makes sense for those of us of the non-road race variety (you're welcome to use the redneck label if you like :) ).

I guess that you can count me in that redneck label as well:)

Originally posted by Darth Xed
It is time that solid rear axles in cars went the way of 8-track tape players and vinyl seating.

It can't cost that much more, since every front drive car out there has it (yes, I know it is a bit different, but not that much different)

Again, Corvette seems to do just fine with it at the strip... and Corvette has had IRS since 1963!

I've seen several Dana 36 rears explode and a lot of dana 44 swaps. The weight is another factor.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I have never heard of a Corvette owner complaining about traction issues or rear end "hop" from thier IRS. Also, i have never heard of any of them complain about a the strength of the rear. In all the high dollar/high horse power aftermarket Corvettes, they never touch the rear and this includes cars like the TT Lingenfelter Vettes. So I think it can be done right without many comprimises.

If the cost and development can be spread throughout a few vehicles, then I wouldn't think the cost would be that much of an issue. Also, if the Camaro has an IRS, then it is something over the comparable Mustang models and then the top level Camaro will have the IRS to compete with the Cobra in the handling department.

Dana 36 in the auto's? I have heard of more than one of them break. I was big into vettes before I was into Mustangs:) The solid rear axle is just fine and there are plenty of parts available for it.

Originally posted by scott9050
I've seen several Dana 36 rears explode and a lot of dana 44 swaps. The weight is another factor.

Gee....I've never seen a live rear axle snap.

Assuming the Camaro comes with IRS across the board, can we expect a quality performance IRS like the vettes or a weaker more hop-prone unit like the Cobra? Since this is shared across the whole lineup, this would mean that even the base v6 camaro will have this rear as well.

IRS would help the handling image of the Mustang and any new Camaro that's for sure. Many people that buy these cars may not know what an IRS is, but they sure know how to toss it out as a buzzword like dohc, vtec, abs, X-cylinders, etc...

The Mustang improved by going to a panhard rod setup, in order to improve a new Camaro should be going to IRS.

I think Ford is on track with switching to a front strut set up, I think the handling/complication/expense issue is just one "short-comings" of being a "SportsCar" that they were adressing. I don't think it was as much a weight issue as what I said above. When I, personally, buy a "Sports Car" I never expect it to ride like a Buick, that's what I bought the Buick for...a good ride and a little sporty...

For a touring car, IRS is probably going to be better, BUT for simplicity, interchangability, upgrade-ability and performance, sticking with a solid rear axle makes more sense from every perspective. These new models are starting to push the power limits on things like the IRS we're used to seeing. Maybe their just trying to aviod some recalls...

As far as Chevy staying "low tech"...."If it ain't broke, Don't fix it"...This rear has PROVEN to be reliable, inexpensive and capable. I think they should use IRS as an option to "feel out the market". If they get some big orders, then consider a limited model production, like "Standard on RS" only...I wouldn't mind buying a second 5th Gen to "cruise around" on uneven pavement in..(the only real advantage of IRS)

(I've seen the Dana's blow spider gears or chip off some teeth, but not blow an axle. BUT, every Vette I've seen that made "Serious Power" swapped the rear, first thing...)(And I've never seen a Lingenfelter TT Vette with a stock live axle either..)

Originally posted by 90rocz

For a touring car, IRS is probably going to be better, BUT for simplicity, interchangability, upgrade-ability and performance, sticking with a solid rear axle makes more sense from every perspective. These new models are starting to push the power limits on things like the IRS we're used to seeing. Maybe their just trying to aviod some recalls...

Maybe Corvette, Viper, Ford GT....and E-V-E-R-Y other high horsepower car in the world should go to a live rear axle.

As far as Chevy staying "low tech"...."If it ain't broke, Don't fix it"...This rear has PROVEN to be reliable, inexpensive and capable. I think they should use IRS as an option to "feel out the market". If they get some big orders, then consider a limited model production, like "Standard on RS" only...I wouldn't mind buying a second 5th Gen to "cruise around" on uneven pavement in..(the only real advantage of IRS)

HUH? Do you have any idea how many "proven" and "reliable" 4th gen live axles have needed to be collected with a shovel and a magnet? Just merely having a live rear axle doesn't necessarilly make it bullet proof. As far as "feeling out" the market......what, do you think that this is....1958 or something? Did you know that currently 55% of the SUV market uses an IRS.......THE SUV MARKET!

A live rear axle only does one thing well. It keeps two wheels in place, on a completely glass smooth surface, going in a straight line...too bad we don't drive like that.

MacPherson struts only do one thing well also, they keep the beancounter happy.

It's one thing to say....go with struts and lively axle because they are cheaper or maybe simpler....but PULLLEEZE don't try to tell me that they are better.

Since noone is saying anything about the New Stangs "Looks", I'll give my opinion.
Good concept, but too "Retro", I liked the '70 Fast-Backs, but I think they pushed it just a little to close to that image..
I would've liked to see a more modern front end...:p More "sleek", and less cut-up, or busy...Just should've toned it down a notch is all..

Okay....Let's think about this in context for a minute.
Why are the SUV's going IRS???
Simply, axle articulation, meaning on uneven ground it'll allow greater flexibilty of the rear suspension, keeping all wheels in contact with the ground for a greater amount of time, correct ?..
*ANOTHER reason is, most small SUV's are basicaly FWD vehicles, and it's easier just to "slap a gear box in the center of the rear, add some axles and rear driveshaft, and leave the rear IRS intact
Why don't we see more IRS in Larger SUV's as small ones??
They aren't carrying the weight of these, basically "Passenger Trucks"or won't be used for "Towing"..

And Cars never leave the reasonably FLAT rolling surfaces and therefore don't NEED much axle articulation, where a live axle has ENOUGH flexibility to more than handle the uneven ROADWAYS..

Don't believe me? I do some 4x4'ing too, you should see how many solid axle truck handle more uneven ground than a car will EVER see..

MY OPINION:: (Ofcourse, this is all just my opinions..based on facts and experiences.)
***With a GOOD spring/shock/strut combination, IRS on the street IS a waste of money....***A luxury that most will NOT even be able to appreciate, like buying expensive speakers that operate OUTSIDE the range of human hearing..("It Sounds Cool!)
If it came as an option, we could see if it was going to make a difference or not, in reality not theory..

***And the only time the reliability of the current F-Body axle is called into question is when the vehicle is either; Considerably modified, or Drag Raced where traction has been greatly improved...***(Slicks/VHT/suspension mods etc)(What of a 12-Bolt, or Ford 9 inch??)

How many Vette's have you ridden in?? I have taken a ride in a few(very few granted), a fast C4 and some C3's and they rode stiffer than my IROC, witout IRS. I could feel every little crack in the road!..
Like I said, spring stiffness and strut or shock combination will affect the ride greater than IRS...True?

BETTER ?, I don't believe I sad that, I said "for certain intended purposes, it's better", some cars are intended for certain duties, right? Why try to make them do everything, half way, when they can do the thing they were meant to do ALL the way...Perform.

I personally like the feed back from the road in "Spirited Driving" episodes, where driving say a Caddy, would "disconnect" you from what's going on between your car and the road...and that can be dangerous!

Unless the area you drive on is 100% perfect pavement, you absolutely, positively will appreciate and notice an IRS vs solid axle setup.

Originally posted by 90rocz


Don't believe me? I do some 4x4'ing too, you should see how many solid axle truck handle more uneven ground than a car will EVER see..

So what your saying is a Jeep Wrangler is a better off-roader than...oh, say......a Ferrari 360 Modena. I don't even know where to begin here, so I'll save the bandwith.

Just so you know...there is a substantial difference between rock crawling in an off-road vehicle.....and hitting a mid-apex bump as you squeeze on the gas in a sports car. I'd say the Ferrari would eat that Wrangler there (that is if the 360 wasn't collected in the Wrangler's triple cartwheel)....solid axles, 4x4 and all.



How many Vette's have you ridden in?? I have taken a ride in a few(very few granted), a fast C4 and some C3's and they rode stiffer than my IROC, witout IRS. I could feel every little crack in the road!..
Like I said, spring stiffness and strut or shock combination will affect the ride greater than IRS...True?

FALSE!

An IRS....and for that matter an SLA front ...have a greater ride/handling tunability range than a lively axle and McPherson struts. On your IROC...and mine....if you want to increase handling...you need to limit wheel travel. That gives you a FAR stiffer ride...and oh BTW...beware those mid-corner bumps...they come with lots of drama on a stiffly sprung live rear axle.

Better handling------WITH BETTER RIDE------can be achieved with an IRS and a more sophisticated front suspension. If the C3 or C4 you rode in seemed stiff....it's because it was stiff.

And yes...not only have I ridden in Corvettes...I have actually driven them! :shock: Let's forget about improved ride for a minute....take a live rear end car around a twisty bit of road....and do it again with an IRS car....you will feel the difference...I promise.

Originally posted by Z284ever
Gee....I've never seen a live rear axle snap.

You don't see a whole hell of a lot of Ford 8.8's snap:) I've seen 500+ hp pushed into a stock 28 spline t-lok and live multiple passes. A quick upgrade to some 31 spline forged mosers and a good differential and you can push it way beyond that.

Originally posted by 90rocz
***With a GOOD spring/shock/strut combination, IRS on the street IS a waste of money....***A luxury that most will NOT even be able to appreciate, like buying expensive speakers that operate OUTSIDE the range of human hearing..("It Sounds Cool!)
If it came as an option, we could see if it was going to make a difference or not, in reality not theory..

Try doing some "spirited" driving on the rough winding roads of northern Michigan. I can promise you, I've felt the rear end of my car step out on me more than I care to remember....it isn't a fun feeling, especially when a car is coming in the opposite direction. :eek:

Wilson.I see what your saying about IRS and how nice it is to have on a daily basis.I have a IRS equipped Cobra and I know all to well the good and the bad of having IRS.Ill tell you one thing though "you hit a bump mid turn" in an IRS car and guess what?The @$$ end likes to come out too.Mainly when your on the throttle.Sure it isnt the same as solid but it is close.Alot of the stepping out has to do with your tire selection.

Being a die-hard "My blood runs BLUE" kind of guy and absolutly loving the Blue Oval my entire life I am VERY proud that they have a solid axle in the new Mustang.99% of the Mustang owners Ive EVER known are going to dragrace their car then run down to their local roadcourse and hit the twisties.There is no need of debating that information (being from Macomb Im sure you know there are a TON of Mustangs in Southeast Mich.)..Also "most" Cobra owners (99-04) will rather trade their IRS for a solid axle.Sure the IRS in the 99+ cars is a "tacked on" unit,It does what it was designed to do very well.Handle the twisties,The problem is SVT did not think of guys who want to run the snot out of their cars at the dragstrip though.{I can go on about durability issues but it is a waist of bandwidth.}

The part I have been waiting for.
The Shelby Cobra was designed with the Ford GT suspension.Think about this-
Ford GT=5.4 D.O.H.C.
Shelby Cobra=4.6 based V-10 D.O.H.C.
Beings the 5.4 in the GT has a taller deck hieght,Its a no brainer for the 4.6 based V10 to fit in a hole of equal size. :D ;)
{warning:the above is not a flame!!}

"SLA-In the mind of a Mustang guy"
In another post.:p :D

My point is this;
The benefit isn't a huge casm that many believe, and for the most part its bragging rights. There's lots of refinement left in the live axles if they wanted to pursue it.
How many "FAST" Darg Racers do you know run IRS suspensions, barring the weekend warrior Vette?
Me? = NONE..
Drag Racing is just acceleration, if (RWD)IRS is so strong, why isn't it mainstream in racing?
The tune-ability is something I agree with you about, that's why the IRS is used in CART, or INDY racing. Most of which do NOT have brutal low end torque to deal with..

And if you've seen the newer "CV" style rear axles in the new Vette's, they look like the same type axles GM was complaining about being too weak to handle the torque of a "Beefy" V8 in FWD cars.
Even with some of the FWD turbo Chryslers I've owned, half-shafts could'nt even take the abuse of a modded 4 cyl turbo...More than a couple of times I've scattered ball bearings all over the road after a tire-smoking run through the first complete 2 gears...

A suspensions ability to hold a road is NOT greatly affected by IRS, a stiff suspension is a stiff suspension, only tuning the shocks, spring rates, roll bars and geometry will result in greater control. A extremely stiff suspension will hold its "line" right up to the point of total release, where a soft suspension will allow drifting, breaking traction b/c of weight transfer pulls weight off the inside tires.

(As far as windy roads, I live in the Ohio Valley, no wind breaks here. The side-stepping isn't b/c of a solid rear axle, it's the stiff suspension. My Suburban doesn't experience side-stepping and it has a solid front and rear axle.)

i personally haven't experienced the difference of a good IRS vs a good solid rear axle, so I can't comment on whether IRS is better or the solid axle is just as good as far as handling is concerned. i would agree that a lot has to do with tuning either suspention type when handling is concerned.

however, one thing that is undeniably better with all wheels suspended independently is ride quality. when a solid axle is upset by a bump on the road, especially when the bump is only traveled by one wheel, the entire axle still bounces, causing the whole rear of the car to bob. the solid axle is limited by its inherent design when it comes to absorbing road irregularities.

the IRS on the other hand does not upset the entire car when only one side of the car is going over a bump or some other roughness of the road. only the side that is being effected is upset. the suspention then does what its supposed to do and absorbs the energy on that side leaving the rest of the wheels planted and the car on its intended path. also, there is no way an IRS can "step out" because that is simply not possible due to its design. the solid axel on the other hand does indeed move laterally reletive to the frame/body of the car when it is upset in a turn. the panhard bar which is there to prevent this from happening is far from a perfect device for the job, but once again, little can be done due to the physics involved with the rigid axle.

what may be experience in an IRS suspended car mid corner is loss of traction if the suspention is overly stiff and is unable to absorb the energy transfered to it from the ground (bump). in this case the entiry rear end of the car is momenterily lifted (given a reasonably rigid body), causing loss of traction at the opposit wheel. the sensation may be similar, but its not the same thing. and much more can be done to help this case with an IRS than a solid axle using the numerous tuning options available to the IRS that are simply not there with a solid rear.

that's my take on it anyway.

Anyway......

If the Mustang guys like a live rear axle....well then, bless their hearts!

As far as I know....nothing but a well developed IRS has EVER been considered for a 5th gen. I just hope they don't get stingy on the front end.

Here's another point I'd like to bring up. Possibly, Ford had to skimp on suspension in order to pay for more expensive powertrains.

How much more do you think the Mustang GT's 300 hp 3v motor costs than the 400hp (;) ) LS2? Forget that.....how much more than the LS2 will the future Mach 1's re-tuned '03/'04 Cobra motor cost? Forget that....how much more than the LS2 will the '06 Cobra's alloy, 4v, SC 5.4 cost?

I'm surprised Ford didn't consider leaf springs.:)

I want a 4 barrel carb on the 5th Gen. Much easier to tune and I don't have to deal with all that new-fangled computer crap. ;)

And please, PLEASE make my seat covers vinyl!

Dont knock leaf springs.... the C6 Corvette has them :D :D
You can make a Solid axle handle. It might not ride that great but some people cant afford a car like that. The new mustang is a great car for the cost. The wife has taken a liking to them. It might replace her SRT-4 in a year. My next car.... A GT0, 5th GEN or the next S/C offering from the mustnag camp.

A well done IRS will be on mustang. Thats not the issue. Its the front suspention that will be lacking on the Cobra.

Maybe a SLA/IRS 4.1 sc v8 from the jags for one bad ass handling Cobra R. Rumor has it that the jag s/c V8s will be incking upon the 500hp mark. It would all fit.

Originally posted by ProudPony
As a Mustang owner myself, I too was for the Live Rear Axle on the base and entry V8 cars. These cars are where the unwealthy individual strives to create his own weekend warrior/daily driver. I agree with Mark that a correctly designed and applied IRS shouldn't be a huge hindrance to the drag racer - but at what additional costs? There is NO WAY you can pull the Ring and Pinion swap, add roll-overs or traction control links, and narrow the axles for tub/slicks on an IRS system like you can with a Ford 8.8 or 9" for anywhere close to the same money - NO WAY.

IRS costs more - PERIOD. It therefore makes perfect sense that those who know what it is, and are savvy enough to enjoy it's benefits, should be willing to pay the premium that it requires. Hence, putting the IRS system on the upscale cars like Cobra is a perfect solution.

Also, the typical 16-24 year old high school or college kid that is likely the buyer/driver of the base V6 car couldn't tell you what IRS means, much less feel the difference in ride quality. The kids are just ecstatic to have a car at all, and "look cool" in a Mustang as opposed to dad's ol' Granada or something. And again, these kids don't have the extra $ching$ to lay out for un-necessary things like IRS.




I think this hits the nail on the head squarely. Again, I've stated in other posts the group of people on this website are NOT "typical" car buyers. We are enthusiasts , which by nature are going to put performance on the top of our lists. If we could have our way, we would have a full aluminum lightweight suspension with IRS that could handle 600 HP from the factory (to match the 550 HP output of the car!). As purists, we want nothing but the best!

But that does not typify the masses of America. I agree with Ford's decision for a live rear axle. I think the chassis should be designed to accept either, and make IRS (as well as other goodies, I.E. cobra) as an option. And I hope they do the same for the next gen. camaro.

What I'm really miffed about is the VVT (variable valve timing) technology that Ford came out with on their new engine for the GT! 300 HP on 87 octane! UNREAL! We don't have that technology on our top of the line vette!

Good old general, caught with it's pants down again!

Originally posted by GOATCRAZY


What I'm really miffed about is the VVT (variable valve timing) technology that Ford came out with on their new engine for the GT! 300 HP on 87 octane! UNREAL! We don't have that technology on our top of the line vette!

Good old general, caught with it's pants down again!

I know what you mean. Now we have to make due with only 400 under-rated horse power in the base Vette and soon to be V8 Camaro. What is GM thinking!

Remember GM did this with the 300 hp Northstar engines years ago, same displacement, 300 hp, 87 octane. I don't find it that big a deal. 300 hp was good 12 years ago when the LT1 came out, even if the recomended fuel was premium.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I know what you mean. Now we have to make due with only 400 under-rated horse power in the base Vette and soon to be V8 Camaro. What is GM thinking!

Haha, i'd like that better. Screw 87 octane.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Remember GM did this with the 300 hp Northstar engines years ago, same displacement, 300 hp, 87 octane. I don't find it that big a deal. 300 hp was good 12 years ago when the LT1 came out, even if the recomended fuel was premium.

Northstar is a Dohc, not a Sohc;). Extra cam, as well as an extra 8 valves. That and it was in a more expensive cadillac, not a camaro. I'd also be interested in the power/tq curves for it vs 4.6 3v, but i get the feeling that the 4.6 3v performs better.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I know what you mean. Now we have to make due with only 400 under-rated horse power in the base Vette and soon to be V8 Camaro. What is GM thinking!

Haha, i'd like that better. Screw 87 octane.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Remember GM did this with the 300 hp Northstar engines years ago, same displacement, 300 hp, 87 octane. I don't find it that big a deal. 300 hp was good 12 years ago when the LT1 came out, even if the recomended fuel was premium.

Northstar is a Dohc, not a Sohc;). Extra cam, as well as an extra 8 valves. That and it was in a more expensive cadillac, not a camaro. I'd also be interested in the power/tq curves for it vs 4.6 3v, but i get the feeling that the 4.6 3v performs better.

Originally posted by Evil Turbo SS

A well done IRS will be on mustang. Thats not the issue. Its the front suspention that will be lacking on the Cobra.

Maybe a SLA/IRS 4.1 sc v8 from the jags for one bad ass handling Cobra R. Rumor has it that the jag s/c V8s will be incking upon the 500hp mark. It would all fit.

That's an interesting thought....retrofitting the DEW98 front suspension back on for the Cobra....that combined with the CBS IRS would sure make it handle! I wonder if they actually considered that?

Getting back to the GT....

For $25K, you get an all new, stylish, well equipped, 300 hp V8, RWD car.
I think the Mustang GT will be a popular car.....for the non-discriminating enthusiast.



Maybe Camaro has an opportunity here.

Im a bench racer when it comes to the twisties but I do take my cars to the drag strip a lot. 3 times a month during the summer. So for me and many others The sold is a benifit. Drag racing is the cheapest form of racing. The Mustang has for the most part been a drag car when built. Its good that they can give drag racers what they want, cut costs and still deliver a above average handling car that appears to have a good interior. Well done Ford. for once.

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0




Northstar is a Dohc, not a Sohc;). Extra cam, as well as an extra 8 valves. That and it was in a more expensive cadillac, not a camaro. I'd also be interested in the power/tq curves for it vs 4.6 3v, but i get the feeling that the 4.6 3v performs better.

That is true about the Northstar, but it is not geared for performance duty like the Mustang 4.6 is. They have to make sure it is quiet, smooth, and much more "tame" than a performance engine.

My point is, I am not really knocking Ford, having 300 hp on regular gas is fine and good but 300 hp is not going to cut it anymore in this performance age. They have to keep the price of the GT pretty low and far below the Camaro or even GTO pricetag because when the new GT hits the streets, they are going to have a lot of competition from these and many more. I guess this all relies on the Mustang's price and the price of competitors.

You have to think that GM has learned a few things with the Camaro and I am guessing they won't make most of the same mistakes with the 07'. If the LS2 Camaro is priced anywhere near the GT, Ford will have some power problems with that 4.6.

Well, I don't think Camaro needs 400 hp to compete directly with Mustang GT. As far as the GT motor running on 87 octane...I think that's a good idea.

A Camaro model, with ---perhaps---- a detuned LS2, with lower compression, (to run on unleaded), more conservative cam and valvetrain with say 320-340 hp, priced in the mid to high 20's would compete well with Mustang GT, and even cut into the "Specialty Mustang" models.

A modern chassis would seal the deal.

Originally posted by Z284ever
Well, I don't think Camaro needs 400 hp to compete directly with Mustang GT. As far as the GT motor running on 87 octane...I think that's a good idea.

A Camaro model, with ---perhaps---- a detuned LS2, with lower compression, (to run on unleaded), more conservative cam and valvetrain with say 320-340 hp, priced in the mid to high 20's would compete well with Mustang GT, and even cut into the "Specialty Mustang" models.

A modern chassis would seal the deal.

But why detune it when the current form is already being produced? You don't have to do any R&D so that would save cost, even if it would not be that much. Also, do people really care about thier perfomance car running on regular or premium? I can see why this would be an issue with the V6 base model because that is the "economy" model but on the V8, I think people would rather have the extra performance than the lower octane rating. Not to mention that most people I know or have talked to put in a higher grade anyway, weather it is actually proven to be better or not.

Maybe if GM did a separate model with the "detuned for economy" motor and did all the things you mentioned and priced it say, 1,000 less than the other model. The thing is, I just don't see people going for that. If you give people a choice, I believe they will go for the "regular" engine. Would many more people buy a GT with a 92 octane motor that produced 330 hp for maybe 1k more...........................I think so.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
But why detune it when the current form is already being produced?

I think a certain segment of the market....maybe especially the kind of consumers looking for a $25K GT...would consider at purchase time (whether they admit it or not), saving 20-25% on the grade of fuel they'll be using for the next few years. Yes, I believe this is a selling point. Also, I don't see a need for a 330hp GT....especially since the next Mustang up the pecking order will probably have approx. 350 hp from a SC 4.6. Too much overlap with 330hp....both in performance and even cost.

As far as LS2 goes....you'd take the 400 horsies, and so would I...but I feel that is alittle too scary fast for most people in that segment. The majority of people shopping a GT or it's Camaro equivalent aren't necessarilly looking to go 12's off the showroom floor. They are looking for some style, some performance, in an affordable, easy to live with package.

Cost savings? Well, I believe that LS2 carries over LS6's sodium filled valves and premium valve springs...for one thing. There may be afew more dollars in savings here and there on the motor...but the big savings might be on things like drivetrain. Like clutches, CV joints....maybe even brakes.

Think of these motors having the same relationship as the old L-48/LT-1 or the LM-1/L-82.

If Camaro wants to sell at high volume....something between the V6 and a 400 hp V8 needs to exist. I believe that Camaro will have such an option. I haven't figured out if it will be a 6.0 or a 5.3 though.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
But why detune it when the current form is already being produced? You don't have to do any R&D so that would save cost, even if it would not be that much. Also, do people really care about thier perfomance car running on regular or premium? I can see why this would be an issue with the V6 base model because that is the "economy" model but on the V8, I think people would rather have the extra performance than the lower octane rating. Not to mention that most people I know or have talked to put in a higher grade anyway, weather it is actually proven to be better or not.

Maybe if GM did a separate model with the "detuned for economy" motor and did all the things you mentioned and priced it say, 1,000 less than the other model. The thing is, I just don't see people going for that. If you give people a choice, I believe they will go for the "regular" engine. Would many more people buy a GT with a 92 octane motor that produced 330 hp for maybe 1k more...........................I think so.

I think what I was trying to convey was lost in the translation........I don't think GM (or Ford) NEEDS to produce performance V-8's that run on regular. But I certainly feel that it's noteworthy that Ford can . What one could then think is, well...If they can do this with VVT, can they then produce the equivalent amount of horsepower of, say, a 13:1 racing compression engine that would normally require racing gas, on premium gas?

Keep in mind that this is the same technology that the competition from overseas is making big-time horsepower out of small displacement 4-bangers for years. (Can we say VTEC boys & girls?):eek:

I've personally always considered Ford to be in the "dark ages" as far as their engine technology, but I think that they might have seen the light at the blue oval....:death:

Mainstream racing?...comparing your suburban to a Camaro?...solid axle articulation offroad vs. ind. susp?...feed back when the rearend hops out?....drag racing is about more than going fast in a straight line?....

You're funny.

IMO IRS offers too many benefits to both enthusiasts AMD non enthusiasts. It's a bragging point, it'll offer a better ride in real world conditions whether your driving spiritedly or just cruising.

From a heritage standpont these cars were the answer to the Mustang on the street and track...that track being the SCCA Trans Am series, NOT drag racing.

And when was it determined that IRS (properly designed on the right chassis) is heavier than a huge cast iron axle with 5 arms attached to it. I thought a couple of years ago we were saying IRS would be a weight savings.

And Mustang owners may be nuetral to having struts compared to SLA, but EVERY 'Stang owner whose looked under the front of the '98 Z has been left rather envious.

My message to GM...IRS, IRS, IRS!

Originally posted by dream '94 Z28

And when was it determined that IRS (properly designed on the right chassis) is heavier than a huge cast iron axle with 5 arms attached to it. I thought a couple of years ago we were saying IRS would be a weight savings.

Thank You

And Mustang owners may be nuetral to having struts compared to SLA, but EVERY 'Stang owner whose looked under the front of the '98 Z has been left rather envious.



And, Thank You........

No envy here.The strut set up will be easier and cheaper to maintain in the long haul.I have a question for all SLA lovers here.Have you personally driven the 2005 Mustang?Do you know how it handles?If your to say that it wont handle well because of this then why is it a 20 year old Fox chassis Cobra R stuck right with your Z06?Sure it is bench racing but it is a very SOLID point.

FWIW Ive seen a video of "Nitrous Pete" in a 03 Cobra run a 9.9Xe.t. with the stock IRS!It had a AOD trans though,The hardest thing on an IRS is the shock of a manual transmission.Not that having 800hp on a engine that was never opened since it left the factory had anything to do with the breaking of certain clutches and misc. parts.:p


People get more excited to see the huffer on the top of an 03/04 Cobra then look at a LS1-2-6.The LSx series engines are ugly as sin.

Originally posted by guess who
No envy here.The strut set up will be easier and cheaper

Key word here being cheaper. :)

People get more excited to see the huffer on the top of an 03/04 Cobra then look at a LS1-2-6.The LSx series engines are ugly as sin.

Maybe I'm in the minority but personally I could care less about what an engine physically looks like. It's an engine, something that isn't seen except for the occasional weekend car show. Given the choice between an underpowered beauty queen and an "ugly" beast it's no contest.

Originally posted by guess who
If your to say that it wont handle well because of this then why is it a 20 year old Fox chassis Cobra R stuck right with your Z06?

Soooo...what you're saying is...the Cobra R .....got good lap times.....NOT because it was a purpose built, gutted, stripped for light weight, limited volume semi-racecar (actually,it was a race car, nothing semi about it), with IRS, huge brakes,sticky rubber and aero aids...and a custom built motor....no sirreee Bob.

It ran with the Z06 because of those sh!tty struts. :lol:

Just imagine if it had a decent front suspension....it may have beaten the Z06.


I do agree with you about the LSx motors though...they are pretty ugly.

Some info on the IRS system that will probably be going into the new Camaro.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040107/clw069_1.html

I have to CALL BS.....

I like the z06 a lot better than the Cobra R but. Its no race car. It lugs a lot more pounds around than the Z06. Had smaller tires than a z06 and the weight dist. was worse. His point was that you can get a strut set up to handle as well as a Z06. In a lighter , stiffer frame you could get it to handle better.

The point...... To make the Mustang cheaper they go with a lesser design that can still be made to handle and perform like a world class car(at the cost of comfort). Im sure the Mustang guys wont mind the lack of comfort when they are lapping the same tims as a car that costs twice as much and many couldnt afford anyway.

It is silly that you would compare the two cars anyway other than srt8 line drag racing.

Originally posted by Evil Turbo SS

The point...... To make the Mustang cheaper they go with a lesser design that can still be made to handle and perform like a world class car(at the cost of comfort). Im sure the Mustang guys wont mind the lack of comfort when they are lapping the same tims as a car that costs twice as much and many couldnt afford anyway.



Of course, you can tune a strut (BMW has got it down to an art in the 3 series). But it's not merely a matter of trading ride comfort for handling. Nope.

McPherson struts have one unfixable inherent flaw......DEFLECTION!!

With a McPherson strut, a control arm is used to support the suspension at the bottom (AND ONLY THE BOTTOM!), and a spring-over-shock is used as the suspensions' upper mounting point. The advantage to this type of suspension is the ease and low cost of manufacture. The problem though, is the "shock absorber" not only damps the spring action, but must also act as the steering pivot and must absorb acceleration and braking forces as well. Perhaps more important, is the loss of tire contact with the road as the wheel moves in a big arc in response to road irregularities.


A strut type suspension means less tire on the road and less consistency in dynamic conditions. This means less traction available for braking and turning!

Was paging through some mags and found it interesting that both the GTO and the Solstice have the Mcpherson strut setup. This leads me to question whether GM might go with this on a 5th gen to cut cost and weight? Especially with the added cost/weight of something like an IRS. I guess there's always that possibility.

Having said that, Mcpherson strut can't be that bad if the suspension in general is setup/tuned right. Still, SLA would be better. For the fox chassis stangs, i believe there are SLA conversion kits so that was a potential fix (albiet aftermarket). I wonder if the SLA setup off the Lincolns LS would work????

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Was paging through some mags and found it interesting that both the GTO and the Solstice have the Mcpherson strut setup. This leads me to question whether GM might go with this on a 5th gen to cut cost and weight? Especially with the added cost/weight of something like an IRS. I guess there's always that possibility.

Having said that, Mcpherson strut can't be that bad if the suspension in general is setup/tuned right.

The new VE body will have the same as the CTS..(I think).

Originally posted by AnthonyHSV
The new VE body will have the same as the CTS..(I think).

SLA i take it?

RiceEating5.0,

The Solstice concept had struts, the Solstice production car has SLA.

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=209462

Originally posted by AnthonyHSV
The new VE body will have the same as the CTS..(I think).

I'm expecting SLA suspension in the VE. The commodore has been criticised for its handling compared to the falcon due to its older suspension. It was also believed at one stage that HSV was going to pull out the front mcpherson strut setup and put in their own SLA setup for their cars to improve handling. I hope the criticism that Holden have got locally get through ;)

I am one of those owners that doesn't care about handling all that much. Hell, my car is an auto.

I support the solid axle decision for the Mustang GT. Solid axles are easier to work with and weigh less. If I'm at the track, I sure don't care if it doesn't handle as good as the IRS. I'm sure a lot of the Mustang guys feel the same way.

Those of us who define driving skill/fun as making turns and/while braking and putting down power want IRS.

The other group that defines driving skill/fun as driving in a straight line for 5-7 seconds want a solid axle.

I go back to the original argument, for the majority of the market driving in the real world on freeze/thaw cycle assulted streets, IRS can't be beat.

...and if you don't care how you car handles, why did you buy a sports car? Granted it looks good parked on the curb.....

OK...

I've watched this discussion go round full circle now. I just want to add some comments about the IRS/SLA/MPS comparisons...

A bump in the crown of an apex at WOT causes the rear to step out... Yup, dang sure does. And how many V6 buyers are going to have this happen to them?

Improved ride and handling characterisitics... definitely.
Again, how many penny-pinching high-school kids and college kids really care, and are willing to cough up another $1000 or so to have it in their basic V6 car or even the entry V8? I'd wager that most would pass on the IRS - even if it WERE available (me included) for the cost savings alone, but IF they spent extra money it would be for more motor, NOT an IRS system. ;)

IRS in extreme HP situations is not very pretty. I realize some Callaway and Lingenfelter Vettes are very wild and maintain their IRS systems - great for them. Anybody here associate Lingenfelter or Callaway with cheapness? Low cost?:confused:
It is funny to me though why you don't see IRS on any NHRA rails or top fuel cars. These commercial race teams have money to burn and could choose whatever system they want, but stay with the ol' ring and stobs... for a reason.

Granted, you can break anything when abused the right way, but performance per pound per dollar, there is NO IRS SYSTEM ANYWHERE that will run 1/4's or 1/8's and live like a good live axle. For those of us who might go to the strip 2 or 3 times a month, and rack up 8-12 passes a night - it DOES matter.

And a personal note - Corvettes DO suffer from wheel-hop, I've seen it MANY times at the track myself. If you want to see it yourself, go to any street car event OR just rent the movie "Cannonball Run" and watch the red C4 (driven by Sammy Davis Jr and Dean Martin). There is a Nevada State Trooper after them in a Firebird, when the Vette does a 180 in the road. The wheels hopped like mofo during braking for the 180 spin, then chirped/hopped like crazy when the driver nailed the gas taking off from a stop with the front wheels slightly turned. There's like 3 or 4 good shots of the C4 doing tire-smoking maneuvers, and the rear wheels are hopping in every shot - brakes OR accelerating.

Regardless, if you are suffering from wheel hop and want to stop it, it MUCH easier to do in a live axle system than an IRS unit, and we won't start talking about the aftermarket available for each, will we?

LAST POINT - Ford has knocked a MAJOR HOME RUN with the Mustang for the last 15 years by allowing the buyer to buy a new car for cheap, then modify it to suit the individual. I see the decision to stay with live axles as a continuation of that successful formula. They give you the platform to start from, you do what you want with it. There are aftermarket suspension kits available from basic bushing kits to full-blown conversions - front AND rear. If you want it and you got the cash... you're all set. If you DON'T WANT IT, you didn't have to pay for it ANYWAYS when you bought your base V6 unit because you had NO CHOICE. And that too is what Mustang has been all about since the beginning - choices... options... personalization of your car to your lifestyle.

For heaven's sake guys, the F-cars had the Mustang GT beat hands-down in the "performance" category for the last decade... but did it REALLY MATTER!?!? I've said before, I DON'T WANT to see the Mustang lineup turned into luxury-loaded, sweet-riding, pimped-up bunch of overpriced tech-mobiles - I WANT IT SIMPLE!!!
"People", that is "people en-masse", do not CARE about performance, I swear it, and the sales numbers prove it. IMO, about 97% of the people just want good economic value wrapped in a stylish exterior - but they DEMAND...
1)Practicality - live axle has it.
2)Cost - live axle has it.
3)Functionality - live axle has it.

Now, I'll turn right around and tell you that if I choose to buy a Mustang Boss 302 or some such car in the next couple of years, I would like to be able to get IRS on it - and I WILL if it is available. I also want them to keep IRS as an option for the upscale cars like Cobra that can best utilize the system and where costs don't really matter. And the best suggestion I've heard yet is for Ford to simply make it optional on any Mustang at added cost, then the public could justify the demand.

As for Camaro, if you insist on bringing it back with mandatory IRS on all models, I think you'd be making a big mistake. In such a cut-throat market segment as the sportscar/ponycar market is becomming, with import pressures to boot, adding mandatory cost to the base models without visual impact or noticeable improvement is unwise IMO. Do you REALLY want to market a car with the slogan "...ours comes with IRS, unavailable on the base Mustang."?
How about "...ours has 335 horsepower, unavailable on the GT.", that sold really well now, didn't it?
Or maybe "...ours has SLA front suspension, not available on the Mustang.", that one shoulda sold 100k units alone... but didn't.
Don't you guys get it? The average Joe doesn't care! It's the styling, the daily usefullness, and the monthly payment that wins out in the battle for car sales volume.

Rant over. Appologies to those who may be offended at my stance and rhetoric. I just think the persuit of the best performance available has jaded the eyes of us enthusiasts, causing us to loose clear sight of what has made the Mustang so successful for so long... simplicity and cost of the basic cars - plain and simple.

Look no further than right here in this very forum... the Ford guys are pretty much happy with it, the GM guys maybe 50/50. Just verifies that Ford gave us what we asked for (or wanted)... again.
:thumb:

Originally posted by dream '94 Z28
I go back to the original argument, for the majority of the market driving in the real world on freeze/thaw cycle assulted streets, IRS can't be beat.


Can't be beat how?

In COST?
In Maintainability?
In Servicing?
In ability to Modify?
In Durability?

Or in RIDE QUALITY?:D

PS - not much freeze/thaw going on in Phoenix!
But your point is WELL MADE. :bow:

For years we have all pretty much agreed on that the Mustang has out sold the F-twins because they were MORE COMFORTABLE in everydy driving.

So now we want chevy to put on an archiac mechanical device on the next Z which we've all agreed on does not give you the same ride quality as a solid axle? Hmmm, that doesn't equal sales to me.

And as far as if penny pinching high schoolers will shell out another $1000 for IRS, I don't know how many peeny pinching high schoolers are buying new cars to begin with, let alone can afford the high insurance premiums a high schooler in a sports car will bring. That hasn't been the target audience for awhile now!

And back at ya, if you're dumping all that money to make you car go blazingly fast ina straight line, what it to you to drop another $500-$1000 on a solid axle swap.

Of course, I am hedge my bet a little to see how the new 'Stang actuall feels and performs.

But my $0.02 is still wagered for IRS.

Originally posted by ProudPony

It is funny to me though why you don't see IRS on any NHRA rails or top fuel cars. These commercial race teams have money to burn and could choose whatever system they want, but stay with the ol' ring and stobs... for a reason.


And these cars are not driven on the street...

Real World condition make this comparison almost useless unles you are buying your new car strictly to be run on 1/4 mile tracks.

Originally posted by ProudPony
It is funny to me though why you don't see IRS on any NHRA rails or top fuel cars.

NHRA doesn't use OHC motors either. Guess that means pushrod V8's are the way to go for "total performance." ;)

Sorry Mustang guys, because they use large displacement, 16 valve pushrod V8's your little 4.6 won't have any success in drag racing! Kinda puts things in perspective, no?

See, here's the thing. I'm all for keeping things simple, but an independent rear suspension doesn't have to be "more complicated", or (much) more costly, or weigh much more. It's just like you said, if most people don't know or don't care about what suspension setup their new pony car has why would you then assume they'd go for the solid axle Mustang all the time, assuming comparable models are just a few hundred dollars apart? You don't think maybe Camaro may have some cool features or a favorable interior layout to the Mustang, cost-free, that would help sway buyers?

The Camaro has had to live with the sigma of being a "low tech brute" for as long as I can remember. Mustang for the most part hasn't had that problem ( :confused: ).....I firmly believe that to be taken seriously by all enthusiasts against not JUST the Mustang but the other gammut of sporty cars from Japan and Germany the Camaro needs a 21st-century suspension.

Anyways, from what I'm reading, the LS2 C6 "IS" getting "Varible Valve Timing" in the form of "2" camshafts "in the block", one operating the Intake, the other operating the Exhaust.(remaining OHV)
Unless they made a last minute change in plans I didn't hear about..
And my point about the Vette competing with Ford and Dodges' premiums; Motor Trend wouldn't even test the '04 Vette with them stating to the effect that in present form, it just wasn't even in the running...adding that if they hold onto plans for the 6.0L LS2 they might do another shootout next year..
BTW they got like 3.6 to 3.9 second 0-60 times for the Viper RT10 and the GT40 and 1/4 times of 11.70's right at 124mph!..(Very close..Both pushing the 500HP mark.)
I personally think the GT40 owns the Viper in the looks department, and I'd like to see a Top Speed comparison.

But anyways, RIGHT HERE, is where the Vette should be competing, in their price range, where they would be the better choice. And I believe the C6 in a Z06 version should be competitive especially with a 475-500HP version...(Cause 405HP ain't gonna do it..)

(GTO tested = 0-60 5.3seconds and 13.57 I believe was the 1/4.
Mitsu Evo = 0-60 5.0 secs and 13.50 1/4...)

Originally posted by dream '94 Z28
For years we have all pretty much agreed on that the Mustang has out sold the F-twins because they were MORE COMFORTABLE in everydy driving.

So now we want chevy to put on an archiac mechanical device on the next Z which we've all agreed on does not give you the same ride quality as a solid axle? Hmmm, that doesn't equal sales to me.
You are confusing me here...
You say we all agree Mustang has better comfort in everyday driving (with struts and live axle) right?
So Chevy is to add "archaic" stuff to get a better ride quality?
Sorry, I just I don't follow you here.



And as far as if penny pinching high schoolers will shell out another $1000 for IRS, I don't know how many peeny pinching high schoolers are buying new cars to begin with, let alone can afford the high insurance premiums a high schooler in a sports car will bring. That hasn't been the target audience for awhile now!
Granted - that is not THE target audience - but there are a good bit of sales that fall into that category nonetheless. With average buyers close to 30 y/o, that means the sales are spread out pretty good, but it also means about as many teens or twenty-somethings are buying as there are 40 and 50-somethings. DON'T IGNORE THE YOUNG CROWD.
I for one helped buy my car as a kid, and I know many others who did too. I don't agree with a 16 y/o getting a new car, but it happens.

And back at ya, if you're dumping all that money to make you car go blazingly fast ina straight line, what it to you to drop another $500-$1000 on a solid axle swap.
I hate you missed the posts we had a while back about throwing a $1500 CBS/IRS system out the back door of your garage. The point is, why pay the upcharge for an IRS in the first place, only to turn around and pay more more a second system of lesser complexity and technology? It's wasteful and needless, and it's added expense that hits hardest on the budget racers who can't easily afford it.

Of course, I am hedge my bet a little to see how the new 'Stang actuall feels and performs.

But my $0.02 is still wagered for IRS.
Which is all fair and good. We are all entitled to our opinions, and I don't wholelly disagree with you either. But like I said, I want to see the Mustang stay as basic and cost-effective as possible - even before the technology and performance priorities. I can always take a V6 or 4-banger Mustang and hot-rod it, but if the car gets 86'ed for lack of sales (a'la F-cars) then I have NOTHING to play with. :(

Originally posted by Darth Xed
And these cars are not driven on the street...

Real World condition make this comparison almost useless unles you are buying your new car strictly to be run on 1/4 mile tracks.

I was eluding to running 2000+ hp through an IRS system.
Even 1200hp.
Those guys know that live axles are durable and strong, and far less complex.
KISS principle in action.

I wasn't referencing driving a top fuel car on the road.

Work with me here Darth! Show me some love! :D :bow:

Originally posted by ProudPony
I was eluding to running 2000+ hp through an IRS system.
Even 1200hp.
Those guys know that live axles are durable and strong, and far less complex.
KISS principle in action.

I wasn't referencing driving a top fuel car on the road.

Work with me here Darth! Show me some love! :D :bow:

heheh...

Just pointing out that everything that makes sense for the strip does not have to apply to a vehicle that is run on the street 99.99999% of the time. ;)

That's me...Keep it SIMPLE...refine it somewhat but...keep it simple.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
NHRA doesn't use OHC motors either. Guess that means pushrod V8's are the way to go for "total performance." ;)


Sorry Mustang guys, because they use large displacement, 16 valve pushrod V8's your little 4.6 won't have any success in drag racing! Kinda puts things in perspective, no?
OK - humor taken with a smile, and point noted. :D
Likewise, I guess we may as well throw away the tire technology they developed for drag radials, and forget the exotic kevlar clutch systems they developed that we see in our street cars huh? Those things must be as archaic as rock itself! :D

Enough puns and giggles - you know what I was driving at. :thumb:


See, here's the thing. I'm all for keeping things simple, but an independent rear suspension doesn't have to be "more complicated", or (much) more costly, or weigh much more. It's just like you said, if most people don't know or don't care about what suspension setup their new pony car has why would you then assume they'd go for the solid axle Mustang all the time, assuming comparable models are just a few hundred dollars apart? You don't think maybe Camaro may have some cool features or a favorable interior layout to the Mustang, cost-free, that would help sway buyers?
Yeah, Camaro could offer other features that might sway buyers based on cost - but my point was making a lame defense for justification of the IRS system alone as a "performance" enhancement. Surely the HP difference between a '94 Z and a '94 GT WAS noticeable, yet look at the sales. Now try to pull it off with a much less noticeable enhancement - I just don't think it will matter.

As for options, back in 1966, there were almost endless options for the Mustang, from int/ext colors, to engines to seating (bench or buckets, deluxe or base) to wheels to vinyl tops, convertibles, fastbacks, coupes, 3 types of side mirrors - you name it. What Ford found out was that many options just never got ordered. (For example, I have a '69 Mustang coupe, I-6, 3-spd, with front bench seat and deluxe interior... 1 of 169 that year with the bench seat configuration) When Ford concluded that the cost associated with the option were not justified by the sales of the option, it was cancelled.
I'd propose doing the same with the future Mustang...
As I eluded to earlier, make it optional on every car for at least a couple years, show the buyer the added charge, and see if they sell. Simple. I'll wager that very few will opt for it, even with salesmen going for the add-ons with custom-ordered cars. Dealers ordering inventory cars could sway the tally towards more costs, because options are where the $ is made, but I still think most folks simply won't care.

The Camaro has had to live with the sigma of being a "low tech brute" for as long as I can remember. Mustang for the most part hasn't had that problem ( :confused: ).....I firmly believe that to be taken seriously by all enthusiasts against not JUST the Mustang but the other gammut of sporty cars from Japan and Germany the Camaro needs a 21st-century suspension.
Fair enough. I agree with that statement 100%. But in addition to that statement, I would add that GM and Ford need to not lose focus on the tuners, hobbyists, and DIY-guys that are trying to have fun on Saturday nights after working a 40-hour week in a factory. Keep the options open, don't FORCE us to swallow a pill we don't want. I think the 21st century suspension should be designed and available for those who want it, but not force onto those who don't, and it's often those who don't want it that come into the racing parts catalog for more goodies too.
Fair enough? :cool:

My take on this:

Ford listens to the drag racers. That's great, really is, that the drag race crowd gets the Mustang they really wanted, but do you really think they put the solid axle in the car just for the drag racers?

How many people that own mustangs race them? I'll say 10% and I think that is being more than generous.

We all know IRS provides better overall ride comfort and superior car control on rough pavement since movement of each tire is independent of the other. I happen to live in the state with the best roads in the country (as voted by a national trucking association), and even here a live axle car has its problems on city streets and in interstate construction zones. My rear has stepped out on my at far less than WOT.

I do not honestly thing Ford would have made a move to a solid axle just to please 10% at most of its possible customers while delivering a less pleasing product to the other 90%.

I think the "we listen to racers" thing is cool, certainly would feel good to get asked by GM what I wanted in a 5th gen, but in all honesty I think Ford was looking for an excuse to stay with the live axle and cut costs, and having the backing of the racer crowd merely cemented the choice. The strut front was clearly a cost decision too.

Now, I am not harpooning Ford's choices here. Mustang has always been affordable, and to increase the content of the car but make it inaccessible to its prime market would be death to Ford's flagship. I think they watched the 4th gen die a similar death and they learned from it.

Do I want a sophisticated front AND rear suspension in the 5th gen? Yes, but not if that means they will be priced out of the range of most buyers in this demographic.

I think the car magazines are going to hammer Ford over this choice, but at the same time when the sales figures come in and they still have the best selling coupe in the country, Ford will have the last laugh.

Hopefully GM has the economies of scale with a high volume rear-drive platform that will allow us to get IRS and a cheap base coupe. It has to be priced close to Mustang or it won't sell.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
The Camaro has had to live with the sigma of being a "low tech brute" for as long as I can remember. Mustang for the most part hasn't had that problem ( :confused: ).....I firmly believe that to be taken seriously by all enthusiasts against not JUST the Mustang but the other gammut of sporty cars from Japan and Germany the Camaro needs a 21st-century suspension.

One last thing... as for Camaro being a "low tech brute"...

1)GM already has a "high tech brute" called the Vette
2)Name me a German or *** car that compared to F4 performance per $
3)Name me ANY car that could do what the F4 did for $25k

Maybe the low-tech brute trophy ain't such a bad one to have on the shelf... ;)

Originally posted by Chris 96 WS6
My take on this:

Ford listens to the drag racers. That's great, really is, that the drag race crowd gets the Mustang they really wanted, but do you really think they put the solid axle in the car just for the drag racers?

How many people that own mustangs race them? I'll say 10% and I think that is being more than generous.

We all know IRS provides better overall ride comfort and superior car control on rough pavement since movement of each tire is independent of the other. I happen to live in the state with the best roads in the country (as voted by a national trucking association), and even here a live axle car has its problems on city streets and in interstate construction zones. My rear has stepped out on my at far less than WOT.

I do not honestly thing Ford would have made a move to a solid axle just to please 10% at most of its possible customers while delivering a less pleasing product to the other 90%.

I think the "we listen to racers" thing is cool, certainly would feel good to get asked by GM what I wanted in a 5th gen, but in all honesty I think Ford was looking for an excuse to stay with the live axle and cut costs, and having the backing of the racer crowd merely cemented the choice. The strut front was clearly a cost decision too.

Now, I am not harpooning Ford's choices here. Mustang has always been affordable, and to increase the content of the car but make it inaccessible to its prime market would be death to Ford's flagship. I think they watched the 4th gen die a similar death and they learned from it.

Do I want a sophisticated front AND rear suspension in the 5th gen? Yes, but not if that means they will be priced out of the range of most buyers in this demographic.

I think the car magazines are going to hammer Ford over this choice, but at the same time when the sales figures come in and they still have the best selling coupe in the country, Ford will have the last laugh.

Hopefully GM has the economies of scale with a high volume rear-drive platform that will allow us to get IRS and a cheap base coupe. It has to be priced close to Mustang or it won't sell.

Well put.

The only thing I might add to your comments is that Ford did not just ask the drag racers what they wanted... they survey everything from NMRA guys to MCA members to general public test groups/focus groups. My understanding is that all groups favored the live unit over IRS (go figure?).

Now don't ask me to try to explain people's thought processes, cause I can't. I just know what works for me. I want IRS on top-end Mustangs only (at least for now).

Come to think of it...how big a role do you guys think packaging played in determining the front suspension type? I would assume that the 4.6 (especially Dohc) and 5.4 varients would make for a fairly tight fit in most engine compartments. Taking fitment into question, do you guys think this could have been the deciding factor? Do you think it could have played a bigger role than cost?

Personally, IRS would be nice. I would have liked to see it as an extra cost option.

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Come to think of it...how big a role do you guys think packaging played in determining the front suspension type? I would assume that the 4.6 (especially Dohc) and 5.4 varients would make for a fairly tight fit in most engine compartments. Taking fitment into question, do you guys think this could have been the deciding factor? Do you think it could have played a bigger role than cost?

Personally, IRS would be nice. I would have liked to see it as an extra cost option.

I think there's a whole myriad of forces behind both front and rear suspension choices, let alone Ford's decision not to base the new car on the DEW98 (?) platform.

Granted the Camaro isn't supposed to be a technoligal showcase, but the same time, it is 2004.

How about we move onto the next heated discussion, like how much the new front end looks like a pickup truck (what!? whoa?! did I say that? hey, what's one more stone at the hornets' nest at this point). :eek:

Dream 94 your right-There is a very solid reason for the struts being on the 05 Mustang.The DEW98 engine bay has an opening for an engine that is 30.5 inches wide.The D.O.H.C. 4.6 is ruffly 30 inches wide.Now I dont know how man rocket scientist are here, But that will not work in a production vehicle.Now you know WHY Ford changed the front suspension.DEW98 cannot swallow a dohc 4.6 or a 5.4

As for the rear end being a solid.NOBODY knows how nice/ruff it rides/handles.Im certain it will ride nicer then a 3rd/4th Gen F car..

The other part is if the 5th Gen Camaro were to be designed to only have a IRS,What makes you think you can just slap a solid axle on it?The 99-04 Mustang IRS was designed to fit in the standard location of the upper/lower arm mounts.If Ford did not put a solid in the Mustang it would have a very short future.
Mustang guys want to drag/road race their Mustangs.And Im sorry there are a ton of Mustangs running around roadcourses (F-Bodies too) with a solid that are doing just fine.Heck a Camaro won the SCCA race on speed on Xmas.Do you think it had a solid axle in it???

What this thread boils down to is this.Who ever is looking to buy a Mustang will.The car will sell its self.It has for years and still does.This thread wont do anything to alter that.

There's a simpe reason why the new M*stang suspension is something like Third Gen suspension:

The M*stang guys want some handling too. ;)

Originally posted by Pentatonic
I am one of those owners that doesn't care about handling all that much. Hell, my car is an auto.

I support the solid axle decision for the Mustang GT. Solid axles are easier to work with and weigh less. If I'm at the track, I sure don't care if it doesn't handle as good as the IRS. I'm sure a lot of the Mustang guys feel the same way.

Yep. And there is always the aftermarket for those who want handling.

Originally posted by dream '94 Z28


...and if you don't care how you car handles, why did you buy a sports car? Granted it looks good parked on the curb.....

Mustang is not a sports car, never has been. Go to any of the Mustang national drag racing events and ask:)

Originally posted by ProudPony
OK...

I've watched this discussion go round full circle now. I just want to add some comments about the IRS/SLA/MPS comparisons...

A bump in the crown of an apex at WOT causes the rear to step out... Yup, dang sure does. And how many V6 buyers are going to have this happen to them?

Improved ride and handling characterisitics... definitely.
Again, how many penny-pinching high-school kids and college kids really care, and are willing to cough up another $1000 or so to have it in their basic V6 car or even the entry V8? I'd wager that most would pass on the IRS - even if it WERE available (me included) for the cost savings alone, but IF they spent extra money it would be for more motor, NOT an IRS system. ;)

IRS in extreme HP situations is not very pretty. I realize some Callaway and Lingenfelter Vettes are very wild and maintain their IRS systems - great for them. Anybody here associate Lingenfelter or Callaway with cheapness? Low cost?:confused:
It is funny to me though why you don't see IRS on any NHRA rails or top fuel cars. These commercial race teams have money to burn and could choose whatever system they want, but stay with the ol' ring and stobs... for a reason.

Granted, you can break anything when abused the right way, but performance per pound per dollar, there is NO IRS SYSTEM ANYWHERE that will run 1/4's or 1/8's and live like a good live axle. For those of us who might go to the strip 2 or 3 times a month, and rack up 8-12 passes a night - it DOES matter.

And a personal note - Corvettes DO suffer from wheel-hop, I've seen it MANY times at the track myself. If you want to see it yourself, go to any street car event OR just rent the movie "Cannonball Run" and watch the red C4 (driven by Sammy Davis Jr and Dean Martin). There is a Nevada State Trooper after them in a Firebird, when the Vette does a 180 in the road. The wheels hopped like mofo during braking for the 180 spin, then chirped/hopped like crazy when the driver nailed the gas taking off from a stop with the front wheels slightly turned. There's like 3 or 4 good shots of the C4 doing tire-smoking maneuvers, and the rear wheels are hopping in every shot - brakes OR accelerating.

Regardless, if you are suffering from wheel hop and want to stop it, it MUCH easier to do in a live axle system than an IRS unit, and we won't start talking about the aftermarket available for each, will we?

LAST POINT - Ford has knocked a MAJOR HOME RUN with the Mustang for the last 15 years by allowing the buyer to buy a new car for cheap, then modify it to suit the individual. I see the decision to stay with live axles as a continuation of that successful formula. They give you the platform to start from, you do what you want with it. There are aftermarket suspension kits available from basic bushing kits to full-blown conversions - front AND rear. If you want it and you got the cash... you're all set. If you DON'T WANT IT, you didn't have to pay for it ANYWAYS when you bought your base V6 unit because you had NO CHOICE. And that too is what Mustang has been all about since the beginning - choices... options... personalization of your car to your lifestyle.

For heaven's sake guys, the F-cars had the Mustang GT beat hands-down in the "performance" category for the last decade... but did it REALLY MATTER!?!? I've said before, I DON'T WANT to see the Mustang lineup turned into luxury-loaded, sweet-riding, pimped-up bunch of overpriced tech-mobiles - I WANT IT SIMPLE!!!
"People", that is "people en-masse", do not CARE about performance, I swear it, and the sales numbers prove it. IMO, about 97% of the people just want good economic value wrapped in a stylish exterior - but they DEMAND...
1)Practicality - live axle has it.
2)Cost - live axle has it.
3)Functionality - live axle has it.

Now, I'll turn right around and tell you that if I choose to buy a Mustang Boss 302 or some such car in the next couple of years, I would like to be able to get IRS on it - and I WILL if it is available. I also want them to keep IRS as an option for the upscale cars like Cobra that can best utilize the system and where costs don't really matter. And the best suggestion I've heard yet is for Ford to simply make it optional on any Mustang at added cost, then the public could justify the demand.

As for Camaro, if you insist on bringing it back with mandatory IRS on all models, I think you'd be making a big mistake. In such a cut-throat market segment as the sportscar/ponycar market is becomming, with import pressures to boot, adding mandatory cost to the base models without visual impact or noticeable improvement is unwise IMO. Do you REALLY want to market a car with the slogan "...ours comes with IRS, unavailable on the base Mustang."?
How about "...ours has 335 horsepower, unavailable on the GT.", that sold really well now, didn't it?
Or maybe "...ours has SLA front suspension, not available on the Mustang.", that one shoulda sold 100k units alone... but didn't.
Don't you guys get it? The average Joe doesn't care! It's the styling, the daily usefullness, and the monthly payment that wins out in the battle for car sales volume.

Rant over. Appologies to those who may be offended at my stance and rhetoric. I just think the persuit of the best performance available has jaded the eyes of us enthusiasts, causing us to loose clear sight of what has made the Mustang so successful for so long... simplicity and cost of the basic cars - plain and simple.

Look no further than right here in this very forum... the Ford guys are pretty much happy with it, the GM guys maybe 50/50. Just verifies that Ford gave us what we asked for (or wanted)... again.
:thumb: :bow: :bow: :bow:

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
NHRA doesn't use OHC motors either. Guess that means pushrod V8's are the way to go for "total performance." ;)

Sorry Mustang guys, because they use large displacement, 16 valve pushrod V8's your little 4.6 won't have any success in drag racing! Kinda puts things in perspective, no?

Have you ever checked out the NMRA's modular classes? Best of the modulars is well into the 6's, best time for the SOHC GT is mid 8's. Yeah, they suck for drag racing:rolleyes: These cars are running very close to the other pro mods out there.

Originally posted by scott9050

Have you ever checked out the NMRA's modular classes? Best of the modulars is well into the 6's, best time for the SOHC GT is mid 8's. Yeah, they suck for drag racing:rolleyes: These cars are running very close to the other pro mods out there.

That was my point. I was being sarcastic to prove a very valid point.

Originally posted by ProudPony
Maybe the low-tech brute trophy ain't such a bad one to have on the shelf... ;)

But considering that approach ultimately didn't work out, as you keep pointing out, perhaps it isn't a great way to go. :think: I'm not suggesting the Camaro have AWD with a turbo I5 from the Colorado or anything...IRS isn't exotic stuff.

It's also an interesting observation that probably only 10% of Mustang owners are hard-core racers, with that number maybe on the high side. You pointed out the Mustang clubs that said they'd prefer a solid axle...but I have to believe all of those people are included in that 10%. If Ford is right though, Mustang will sell no matter what, so cheaper and simpler is probably their best move. That doesn't mean I have to be impressed with their choices (which I'm not). :)

In a perfect world, the Camaro SS would be the drag race car with the solid axle (keeps the lineage) and the Z28 would be the road racer with the IRS (also keeps the lineage). Since there's no way we'll get that choice, it's time to go with the better piece for the most people. That said, I can't imagine Chevy would build a Camaro that simply stinks at the strip. I have faith the IRS will be a nice multi-purpose setup.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
That was my point. I was being sarcastic to prove a very valid point.

Gotcha:)

Originally posted by guess who
Dream 94 your right-There is a very solid reason for the struts being on the 05 Mustang.The DEW98 engine bay has an opening for an engine that is 30.5 inches wide.The D.O.H.C. 4.6 is ruffly 30 inches wide.Now I dont know how man rocket scientist are here, But that will not work in a production vehicle.Now you know WHY Ford changed the front suspension.DEW98 cannot swallow a dohc 4.6 or a 5.4



Now that's a good piece of information.:thumb:

Any idea how much more space the struts give the engine bay?

Originally posted by ProudPony



As for Camaro, if you insist on bringing it back with mandatory IRS on all models, I think you'd be making a big mistake. In such a cut-throat market segment as the sportscar/ponycar market is becomming, with import pressures to boot, adding mandatory cost to the base models without visual impact or noticeable improvement is unwise IMO. Do you REALLY want to market a car with the slogan "...ours comes with IRS, unavailable on the base Mustang."?
How about "...ours has 335 horsepower, unavailable on the GT.", that sold really well now, didn't it?
Or maybe "...ours has SLA front suspension, not available on the Mustang.", that one shoulda sold 100k units alone... but didn't.
Don't you guys get it? The average Joe doesn't care! It's the styling, the daily usefullness, and the monthly payment that wins out in the battle for car sales volume.



Proud, good points, as always.

Let's run down some facts (and some well placed speculated facts;) ).

-1) Kappa will start under $20k.

-2) Kappa will have a sophisticated unequal length double wishbone (AKA SLA) suspension..front and rear, with coil overs and alloy control arms.

-3) People who consider a V6 Mustang, will probably have enough money to consider a Solstice (or other Kappa)

-4) IRS WILL be standard on Camaro. The last live rear axle Camaro to ever be built...was built 17 months ago.

-5) The rear suspension on the 3rd and 4th gen F-car, was probably one of the best engineered live rear axle suspensions on planet Earth....and yet it felt archaic.

-6) Ford's V8 powertrains are a much higher fixed cost item for Mustang, than the Gen IV V8 will be for Camaro.

What do all of these disparate facts have in common?


Ford had to cut cost out of the Mustang's suspension to pay for it's more expensive V8's.
Kappa wiil take it's share of the lower end market, including many V6 Mustang sales.
Once Solstice takes off, people will realize that a modern chassis doesn't need to cost alot.
Camaro won't sell as many units as Mustang......nor does it have to.
Camaro will probably be considered slightly higher end than Mustang.
In 2010...when the next Mustang will be 5 years old, people will compare it's dynamics to a John Deere.

And finally........a prediction....

Yes, a $34,000, 430 hp (actual, not rated), 5th gen Z/28, will lap Nurburgring faster than a $40,000, 500 hp, '06 Cobra.

I think Ford made the right decision on Mustang and it's chassis. Many of the reasons have been eloquently explained in this thread. But now GM may have been presented a golden opportunity.

Originally posted by Z284ever

-1) Kappa will start under $20k.

-2) Kappa will have a sophisticated unequal length double wishbone (AKA SLA) suspension..front and rear, with coil overs and alloy control arms.


Now that's what I'm talking about. The proof is already in the pudding as they say. If GM can cost-effectively put the "good" stuff onto a $20,000 platform for niche sports cars, I would have to believe they can do similar, if not better, things with a Camaro chassis. :thumb:

Yes, a $34,000, 430 hp (actual, not rated), 5th gen Z/28, will lap Nurburgring faster than a $40,000, 500 hp, '06 Cobra.

Well now that would be something...especially since we've been hearing so much about how Cobra is aiming straight at Corvette. :eek: This should be fun!

Z284ever, Z28Wilson, you know what you guys' problem is...
Actually, you have multiple problems (both of you)...

1)You know FAR TOO MUCH about cars, old, new, and future ones.
2)You are enthusiasts, with realistic expectations.
3)You set attainable goals for automakers.
4)You are passionate about cars, clubs, and things related.
5)You are blessed with common sense and grey matter.
6)You want better things for people, than they want for themselves.

All admirable qualities in you gents!:bow:

Please understand I'm not AGAINST any IRS systems, and I acknowledge their benefits whole-heartedly, but everyone in the free world doesn't care for "caviar". That's my ONLY point here in this thread.

OK, so you want to explore a different solution for Ford to offer the IRS to performance nuts at a cost advantage...
COUGAR.
Put the Mustang running gear in it, on a modified DEW98, upgrade the interior (somehow?), and put SLA/IRS all around. It's a hybrid of Lincoln LS and Mustang - and all the parts are already PPAP-tested and mass-produced. We only need skin and interior. They could then advertise the Cougar as the Mustang - "upscaled in every way", INCLUDING the ride quality provided by SLA/IRS systems. It's a sure fit for the Marque, the Model, and the Market.

Best of all, it's a win-win test for Ford because...
If the systems all work out to be the performance-enhancing wizards that we arm-chair racers say they are, folks will be hoarding wrecked Cougars from junk yards for the parts ASAP, Ford's FRPP catalog will have the parts in it tomorrow, and we'll see "upgrade articles" in every Mustang rag on the stand, showing how to "swap-in the IRS system", or "swap over your front arms for SLA units".
If the system does NOT bring substantial performance advantages over the front L-arm/strut and Panhard/live axle system, it will still serve as a "better quality ride" basis for the upscaled Cougar - I think we ALL agree on that. We just won't see an exodus of swaps to the Mustang for drag or AutoX work, and the Mustang will live on as-is for the near future.

It fits Mustang perfectly IMO, because EVERYONE can still opt for the "cheap" Mustang because it's available, those who want to spend extra can get IRS on the upscaled Stangs from the factory, and the "tuners" who want to add IRS to their car later can do so via the Ford parts catalog and get customer service/support.

Whaddayasaytothat? ;)

(PS - I may have to start another thread soon about the upcoming Cougar anyways... don't want to spill the beans before I know they are done cooking.)

Originally posted by Z284ever
Proud, good points, as always.
Reciprocated Pal - I read your every word in earnest and with open mind.

Let's run down some facts (and some well placed speculated facts;) ).

-1) Kappa will start under $20k.
And is so far a dedicated 2-seater with open top - hardly a 2+2. And the '05 Mustang is scheduled to start at $17k too.

-2) Kappa will have a sophisticated unequal length double wishbone (AKA SLA) suspension..front and rear, with coil overs and alloy control arms.
Which should be awesome for the $. Expect to see the little car doing heads-up with S2000, Miata, Z4, Boxster, future Focus' and the likes at the local AutoX events.

-3) People who consider a V6 Mustang, will probably have enough money to consider a Solstice (or other Kappa)
Granted, along with at least 12 other models off the top of your/my noggins! :eek:

-4) IRS WILL be standard on Camaro. The last live rear axle Camaro to ever be built...was built 17 months ago.
SAD, but probably true. :(

-5) The rear suspension on the 3rd and 4th gen F-car, was probably one of the best engineered live rear axle suspensions on planet Earth....and yet it felt archaic.
The term "felt archaic" is subjective Charlie. I readily admit that the F4 cars handled fantastically for their size and weight. I was/am quite impressed with the systems they used, and you can't beat the cost/durability in stock trim. As for their "feel", I was not dis-satisfied, maybe some were.

-6) Ford's V8 powertrains are a much higher fixed cost item for Mustang, than the Gen IV V8 will be for Camaro.
We must watch our wording carefully here. Recall the 4.6 is a modular engine based in a family who's tooling and costs are shared with everything from 3.8 V6's in the Taurus to 5.4's in the trucks, and goes in models from US to Australia. The same tooling/family that's now spawning V10's too. So if you are referring to the 3V configured heads for the new Mustang - OK, maybe higher costs now, but only until it shows up in the Crown Vics, Trucks, and SUVs too. If you are referring to the block casting, I have to disagree - the 4.6 is in EVERYTHING Ford offers with a V8, and has been around for 10 years now.

What do all of these disparate facts have in common?


Ford had to cut cost out of the Mustang's suspension to pay for it's more expensive V8's. I respectfully disagree. Ford is just keeping costs down - period - not to offset some other area IMO.
Kappa wiil take it's share of the lower end market, including many V6 Mustang sales.Agreed - to a point. But Mustang will take a few sales from the Solstice because of 2 more seats too.
Once Solstice takes off, people will realize that a modern chassis doesn't need to cost alot.Again - subjective. "People" all over this internet are convinced that the 2000 Mustang GT is faster than the 2000 Z28 too. You KNOW they do, despite the facts. We can't count on people's perceptions to be honest truths Charlie. Fact is - I don't think many will notice any difference at all in the ride, they just want to look good for a cheap price.
Camaro won't sell as many units as Mustang......nor does it have to.Maybe. But if I were GM, or you, or me, I'd at least set my goals for the Camaro as high as my chosen competition. Sales mean $, especially once the design is done and tooling is made. Why not maximize the return on the investment by getting maximum use from the tooling? Make as many as possible and sell 'em like $.05 hot dogs! Vive la '80's!
Camaro will probably be considered slightly higher end than Mustang.Dangerous ground if you ask me. They should compete closely in $ and quality - and BOTH should be better than any imports in the same market. The perception of "higher-end" will also bring the perception of higher $, whether justified or not, and therefore keep potential buyers away. Gimme the bargain car.
In 2010...when the next Mustang will be 5 years old, people will compare it's dynamics to a John Deere.The Gator handles muddy hills pretty well! What's wrong with that? :D
As long as 200K people/year are buying them, I don't care. It's already withstood the test of time antics like Redneck mobile, trailer park trash, etc... recall Jeff Foxworthy's Christmas song in which the very first day of Christmas he got "some parts to a Mustang GT"? Sell-on, my brother, sell-on!

And finally........a prediction....

Yes, a $34,000, 430 hp (actual, not rated), 5th gen Z/28, will lap Nurburgring faster than a $40,000, 500 hp, '06 Cobra.
PM me for a wager on that! :D
We have NO IDEA what the F5 will weigh, or how it will run. We also have no clue what the new Mustang will handle like, or what the Cobra will weigh or it's HP will be. With the recent developments in Ford's performance resume, Shelby offering guidance, Roush and Saleen in consulting positions, and Bill Ford's love of the car - I'd be reluctant to make such sweeping statements this early.
Recall a recent thread in which folks were criticized for making sweeping assumptions about top performers, who had best HP, and whose cars were faster? The Blue Devil was leaked and GM guys went bananas over a 3100lb car with 600 hp. That was the end-all to cure-all... GM was again going to be the baddest on the block, and the car hasn't even been prototyped yet. Then out rolls the Shelby Cobra with a V10 - stripped to the bone and a de-tuned, n/a 650hp all-alloy V10 - packed in a light-weight alloy body. Weight advantage?!?! A FUNCTIONING prototype made for production - Shelby himself doing donuts and powerslides in the car at 81 years old on Rides on TLC last week. And worst of all, they are going back to make MORE IMPROVEMENTS on the car from here!
The lesson from that whole scenario for me is to be very careful what we say, we may be held accountable for it. Recall, I too missed the whole boat with the year-old V10 Mustang, and I thought I knew what was going on! :o You and I were looking for it last January, but didn't find it until December!

I think Ford made the right decision on Mustang and it's chassis. Many of the reasons have been eloquently explained in this thread. But now GM may have been presented a golden opportunity.
GM has had the opportunity all along. They just opted not to play it out, but concentrate on trucks instead. One has to look no further than the intro of the F4 to see GM's last jump above the Mustang in performance, or handling, or even sales for a short while. But when GM started offering the public what they didn't care to buy, it fizzled into oblivion (for various reasons we are all familiar with). Do you think the '02 Mustang GT was that close to the '02 Z28 in performance or handling? Did the '02 Mustang V6 have a superior ride/handling over the '02 V6 Camaro? Yet look at the sales of each.

I see your point, I swear I do, and I even agree with it. I just don't think the public at large cares about this type of detail in a cheap ponycar. If you want a silky ride, buy a grandpa car. If you want handling, you will make sacrifices - at least until we all start driving and racing hovercraft. Even the Vette (master of suspension work IMO) lets you feel every pebble in the road. And if you want cheap, you will go struts and axle tubes - at least for now.

So with IRS(and SLA to a point) it boils down to either getting what you want, or wanting what you get. I'll take the first option, please.

Great post! I enjoy your thoughts! :bow:

6) Ford's V8 powertrains are a much higher fixed cost item for Mustang, than the Gen IV V8 will be for Camaro.
We must watch our wording carefully here. Recall the 4.6 is a modular engine based in a family who's tooling and costs are shared with everything from 3.8 V6's in the Taurus to 5.4's in the trucks, and goes in models from US to Australia. The same tooling/family that's now spawning V10's too. So if you are referring to the 3V configured heads for the new Mustang - OK, maybe higher costs now, but only until it shows up in the Crown Vics, Trucks, and SUVs too. If you are referring to the block casting, I have to disagree - the 4.6 is in EVERYTHING Ford offers with a V8, and has been around for 10 years now

I am past the whole economy of scale argument here Proud....I'm just talking cost of components.

ie,...Mustang GT motor----- 2 cams and 3v per cylinder cost more than 1 cam and 2v per cylinder. Also, 1 cam and 2v per cylinder cost waaaay less than 4 cams, 4v per cylinder, supercharger, intercooler and associated peripherals.....weighs more too.



Hey.......will you start that Cougar thread already......I want to know what you know.;)

And finally........a prediction....

Yes, a $34,000, 430 hp (actual, not rated), 5th gen Z/28, will lap Nurburgring faster than a $40,000, 500 hp, '06 Cobra.
PM me for a wager on that!
We have NO IDEA what the F5 will weigh, or how it will run. We also have no clue what the new Mustang will handle like, or what the Cobra will weigh or it's HP will be. With the recent developments in Ford's performance resume, Shelby offering guidance, Roush and Saleen in consulting positions, and Bill Ford's love of the car - I'd be reluctant to make such sweeping statements this early.

Well, I'm only willing to bet a couple rounds of drinks over this right now....and you'll have to come to Chicago to claim them.

But here is how I see it......

The Cobra will be heavy. It just can't help but be. Big motor. Big supercharger. Big intercooler. Big wheels (20's I've heard).

And why did I pick Nurburgring? Because it's not just the Europeans testing their cars there...Americans..like GM for example have now set up shop there.

THE 14.189 MILE Nurburgring circuit; 174 turns and about 90 gear changes per lap. Only the highest performance street car can run one lap without frying it's brakes.

The Cobra will have hellacious power, but it's brakes will continually need to harness that power and hellacious weight. The CBS IRS will do it's part to get the Cobra around the circuit quickly....but the front McPherson struts will betray it. The front will constantly scrub off speed. Over every hill. Over every bump. Around every decreasing or increasing radius turn......it's 500 horse, supercharged, supercooled engine will try to gain back speed lost by it's front suspension....and weight.


This is fun, I'll finish later.........

Originally posted by Z284ever
I am past the whole economy of scale argument here Proud....I'm just talking cost of components.

ie,...Mustang GT motor----- 2 cams and 3v per cylinder cost more than 1 cam and 2v per cylinder. Also, 1 cam and 2v per cylinder cost waaaay less than 4 cams, 4v per cylinder, supercharger, intercooler and associated peripherals.....weighs more too.



Hey.......will you start that Cougar thread already......I want to know what you know.;)

Ahhh... OK you win on that point. 1 cam vs 4, extra journals, two timing chains... etc. On a cost/part basis I'm sure GM has an advantage because their are less parts in the pushrod engine (or are there?)... 16 lifters, 16 pushrods, and um... oh yeah - THAT'S why the LS1 doesn't have 32 valaves!!! Now I remember! :D

I can't say I know what a crated 4.6-3v costs Ford, but my hunch is you are right - it costs more than GM's LS1 in a crate. I'd LOVE to know the diff though - wouldn't you?

I can't crack that egg open just yet about the Cougar. But isn't it funny how the waves have all gone calm about that car since the summer? And the Messenger was such a hit at the NAIAS last year too.;) I wonder what's been going on at Ford during all this quiet time? Gimme a week or two. I actually CARE what people think about me on this stupid web - don't wanna blow it.

Originally posted by Z284ever
Well, I'm only willing to bet a couple rounds of drinks over this right now....and you'll have to come to Chicago to claim them.


It's a deal - I'm in.

Don't forget - no Cobra data for almost 18 months!
It will be ALL NEW.
That DOESN'T mean a blown 5.4 like the '03.
That DOESN'T mean porky 3600lbs like the '03.
That DOESN'T mean it will have struts like the '03 (or '05 for that matter).

Ford is moving so fast right now, even it's loyal followers and insiders are having a hard time keeping up with it all my friend.
All you can expect... is changes!:D

PS - since you're buying, I'll let you pick the brand!:thumb:

Originally posted by Z284ever
And finally........a prediction....

Yes, a $34,000, 430 hp (actual, not rated), 5th gen Z/28, will lap Nurburgring faster than a $40,000, 500 hp, '06 Cobra.

I think Ford made the right decision on Mustang and it's chassis. Many of the reasons have been eloquently explained in this thread. But now GM may have been presented a golden opportunity.


You do know that the '03 Cobra consistently outruns 350hp C5s on most roadcourses right?

Originally posted by hp_nut
You do know that the '03 Cobra consistently outruns 350hp C5s on most roadcourses right?

I never heard that...post some links.

Back to Nurburgring.....

Last time we left off...... Cobra's 8.5 lbs of boost were huffing to build speed faster than the front strut suspension could scrub it off. But, Boost = Pressure=Heat. This is no 1/4 mile race. This is 14 miles of the most challenging road course on Earth...with 975 ft of elevation changes. Will Cobra overheat?

200x Z/28.
LS2 with "Z/28 SPECIAL PERFORMANCE" cam, exhaust and dry sump oiling system. M12 six speed. 18" front wheels, 19"rear wheels. Brembo brakes...14" front, 12" rear, with crossdrilled rotors. Certain structural components have been replaced with hydroformed aluminum. Z/28 weighs 250 lbs less than Cobra.


Powering down the straight, which is the highest part of the circuit, Cobra has the advantage. Both cars are nearing 120 mph in 6th gear as they reach the first corner, a tight right followed by a slightly longer left, the Castrol-S corner. Z/28 closes the gap!

Watching they don't slide to the left as they turn into the sharp right, getting this corner right sets up for a fast exit at 90 MPH as they enter a short straight. Cobra understeers slightly, Z/28 is right on it's bumper. Reaching 150 MPH in 6th gear, drivers break for a moderate left, taken at 90 MPH before switching across to the left of the circuit for the Ford Kurve, taken even slower at 50 MPH in second gear.

The Ford Kurve leads onto a straight which sees an elevation drop as they power down towards the slowest part of the circuit. Cobra's brakes are getting overheated as they try to rein in 3700+ lbs and 500 horsepower. Passing the first timing sector on the way, drivers reach the Dunlop-Kehre, a hairpin surrounded by a massive spectator stadium section. If Z/28 was fitted with the HUD mounted G-meter.....it would now show 1.05 g's....the dry sump system has just paid for itself! And Z/28 takes Cobra on the inside. Slowing to 40 MPH for the moderate hair pin, drivers play with the throttle as they attempt to find grip and set up for quick exit and run up to a sweeping left and right taken at almost full throttle, at 130 MPH..... Cobra is starting to reel in Z/28. This corner is tricky and can catch one out as he reaches the crest of the hill, being on the wrong line here can see him in the gravel.

Continuing the build up of speed along another straight, drivers power down towards the RTL Kerve, a tight left taken at 70 MPH followed by a right taken at 80 MPH. Cobra is starting to overtake Z/28. Again the cars have to switch from right to left between each corner, leaving no room for error. Taking the Blt-Kurve, in 3rd gear, drivers run down a big elevation drop towards the ITT-bogen corner, which is a fast sweeping right taken at 150 MPH. The elevation change has just cost Cobra's supercharged engine some horsepower.

Watching on the entry as the cars bottom out before continuing up a hill towards one of the most tricky parts of the circuit, the Veedol-S chicane, also passing the second timing sector. Drivers break heavy from 150 MPH to 40 MPH as they turn sharp left then right exiting the chicane and running over the exit kurbs.....this is where Z/28 devours Cobra! A short straight follows before the final corner, the Coca-Cola Kurve, taken at 55 MPH. This corner is vital to conclude a good lap and can set up for a fast run onto the start/finish straight, completing a lap of Nurburgring.


Z/28 takes the checkered flag!



*Many thanks to Formula One Journal*

Originally posted by Z284ever
Back to Nurburgring.....

Last time we left off...... Cobra's 8.5 lbs of boost were huffing to build speed faster than the front strut suspension could scrub it off. But, Boost = Pressure=Heat. This is no 1/4 mile race. This is 14 miles of the most challenging road course on Earth...with 975 ft of elevation changes. Will Cobra overheat?

200x Z/28.
LS2 with "Z/28 SPECIAL PERFORMANCE" cam, exhaust and dry sump oiling system. M12 six speed. 18" front wheels, 19"rear wheels. Brembo brakes...14" front, 12" rear, with crossdrilled rotors. Certain structural components have been replaced with hydroformed aluminum. Z/28 weighs 250 lbs less than Cobra.


Powering down the straight, which is the highest part of the circuit, Cobra has the advantage. Both cars are nearing 120 mph in 6th gear as they reach the first corner, a tight right followed by a slightly longer left, the Castrol-S corner. Z/28 closes the gap!

Watching they don't slide to the left as they turn into the sharp right, getting this corner right sets up for a fast exit at 90 MPH as they enter a short straight. Cobra understeers slightly, Z/28 is right on it's bumper. Reaching 150 MPH in 6th gear, drivers break for a moderate left, taken at 90 MPH before switching across to the left of the circuit for the Ford Kurve, taken even slower at 50 MPH in second gear.

The Ford Kurve leads onto a straight which sees an elevation drop as they power down towards the slowest part of the circuit. Cobra's brakes are getting overheated as they try to rein in 3700+ lbs and 500 horsepower. Passing the first timing sector on the way, drivers reach the Dunlop-Kehre, a hairpin surrounded by a massive spectator stadium section. If Z/28 was fitted with the HUD mounted G-meter.....it would now show 1.05 g's....the dry sump system has just paid for itself! And Z/28 takes Cobra on the inside. Slowing to 40 MPH for the moderate hair pin, drivers play with the throttle as they attempt to find grip and set up for quick exit and run up to a sweeping left and right taken at almost full throttle, at 130 MPH..... Cobra is starting to reel in Z/28. This corner is tricky and can catch one out as he reaches the crest of the hill, being on the wrong line here can see him in the gravel.

Continuing the build up of speed along another straight, drivers power down towards the RTL Kerve, a tight left taken at 70 MPH followed by a right taken at 80 MPH. Cobra is starting to overtake Z/28. Again the cars have to switch from right to left between each corner, leaving no room for error. Taking the Blt-Kurve, in 3rd gear, drivers run down a big elevation drop towards the ITT-bogen corner, which is a fast sweeping right taken at 150 MPH. The elevation change has just cost Cobra's supercharged engine some horsepower.

Watching on the entry as the cars bottom out before continuing up a hill towards one of the most tricky parts of the circuit, the Veedol-S chicane, also passing the second timing sector. Drivers break heavy from 150 MPH to 40 MPH as they turn sharp left then right exiting the chicane and running over the exit kurbs.....this is where Z/28 devours Cobra! A short straight follows before the final corner, the Coca-Cola Kurve, taken at 55 MPH. This corner is vital to conclude a good lap and can set up for a fast run onto the start/finish straight, completing a lap of Nurburgring.


Z/28 takes the checkered flag!



*Many thanks to Formula One Journal*

Mate, you have way too much time on your hands. ;)

Nice story nevertheless. :cool:

posted by Z284ever
But here is how I see it......

The Cobra will be heavy. It just can't help but be. Big motor. Big supercharger. Big intercooler. Big wheels (20's I've heard).

And why did I pick Nurburgring? Because it's not just the Europeans testing their cars there...Americans..like GM for example have now set up shop there.

THE 14.189 MILE Nurburgring circuit; 174 turns and about 90 gear changes per lap. Only the highest performance street car can run one lap without frying it's brakes.

The Cobra will have hellacious power, but it's brakes will continually need to harness that power and hellacious weight. The CBS IRS will do it's part to get the Cobra around the circuit quickly....but the front McPherson struts will betray it. The front will constantly scrub off speed. Over every hill. Over every bump. Around every decreasing or increasing radius turn......it's 500 horse, supercharged, supercooled engine will try to gain back speed lost by it's front suspension....and weight.


This is fun, I'll finish later.........These are such ridiculous statements they [almost] don't even merit comment.
First...you have no clue what will power the next generation Cobra, how much it will weigh, what brakes will be on it, or anything about the suspension other than it will have a version of the McPhersion strut w/coilovers up front and IRS. BMW has built some of the best handling cars in the world using a McPherson strut front suspension. That fact must have escaped you. You've "heard"? Funny, nobody else has "heard" anything concrete about the new Cobra...maybe you could enlighten the rest of us, or stop embellishing.
Second...similarly, so little information is available about the (possible) 5th gen that drawing comparisons and bench racing 3 years in advance appears to be an act of desperation. Your little Nurburgring story, albeit cute, is a pipe dream.
Keep dreaming, maybe one will come true. :D
S.

Originally posted by Snorman
These are such ridiculous statements they [almost] don't even merit comment.
First...you have no clue what will power the next generation Cobra, how much it will weigh, what brakes will be on it, or anything about the suspension other than it will have a version of the McPhersion strut w/coilovers up front and IRS. BMW has built some of the best handling cars in the world using a McPherson strut front suspension. That fact must have escaped you. You've "heard"? Funny, nobody else has "heard" anything concrete about the new Cobra...maybe you could enlighten the rest of us, or stop embellishing.
Second...similarly, so little information is available about the (possible) 5th gen that drawing comparisons and bench racing 3 years in advance appears to be an act of desperation. Your little Nurburgring story, albeit cute, is a pipe dream.
Keep dreaming, maybe one will come true. :D
S. [/B]

Hey listen.....this is my story. You got a better one?...lets hear it! Until then...stop raining on my parade.:p Okeydoke.:)

Just voicing my own opinion (laced with fact). ;)
S.

Originally posted by Snorman
Just voicing my own opinion (laced with fact). ;)
S.

Fair enough.

Kind of a side topic here......

What is the better suspention set-up (chassis stifness and wheel base ect.. the same)

A SLA Front and Solid camaro rear or a L arm strut /IRS . Not on the street but at the track?

To a early comment.... There is a solid axle suspention called a Mumford(sp) That is amazing in the handling dept.

You can put a custom 4th gen Doubble wishbone/coilover suspention in Camaros now. It will soon be a "kit" It does require som mods to the frame but it should come in at 5k installed. :D

Originally posted by Z284ever
Hey listen.....this is my story. You got a better one?...lets hear it! Until then...stop raining on my parade.:p Okeydoke.:)

Oh... Oh... I got one! I got one! Pick me! Pick me!....

OK Mrs. Johnson I'll tell MY story to the class.

Pick up the tele doing a live show. Dave Hill and Barney Hall are broadcasting live from the conning tower in the infield.

Dave: Spring has brought out the cherry tree blooms and the buttercups are lightly blanketed with dew as the morning sun rises to grace the scenery at Watkins Glen. As the sun gets the ashphalt warmed, so too are the engines warming.

Barney: The two have come to meet again... Mustang and Camaro. A 40 year old rivalry that has long since gone from the original cut-throat death battles to friendly jousts between old comrades, each taking their fair share of bruises, black eyes, and trophies.

The challenger, back from a recent vacation is the Camaro, sporting a new generation of the infamous LSx-series pushrod V8. The limited edition 2007 Z/28 package has optioned this animal well for todays track exercise, sporting the LS2 with "Z/28 SPECIAL PERFORMANCE" cam, exhaust and dry sump oiling system. M12 six speed. 18" front wheels, 19"rear wheels. Brembo brakes...14" front, 12" rear, with crossdrilled rotors. Certain structural components have been replaced with hydroformed aluminum. The shortened body, with proportions and styling hints slightly reminiscent of the 1969 Z/28 looks something like a virile body-builder with muscular bulges over the hood and rear fenders. Sharp creases separate the top of the car from the sides, and the hide-away headlamps provide a sinister looking grill that seems to beg for speed to feed air to the beast within. What can we say, the car simply looks awesome - even sitting still. Dave.

Dave: Thanks Barney. The defending champion, continuing to buck the naysayers and provide outstanding performance at a bargain price - The 2007 Boss 302. Ford has powered the animal with the all-alloy 5.0 cammer - a higher-revving, recently developed sibling of the proven 5.4-4V and 5.8L V10 powerplants used in Lightnings and Cobras. The Tremec M6 transmission routes power to the ground via the modified Control Blade IRS system, also borrowed from Cobra. Front suspension is a modified wishbone system, using driver-tuned Koni adjustable shocks and 1" lower-than-stock coils supplied by Eibach. 18" x 9" alloys all-around shod with Michelin Pilots further reduced the rotating mass. Sound-deadening was severely reduced in side walls and rear floor areas, Alloy K-members replace the old steel units used in the stock Mustang's front end, and the body incorporates aluminum and fiberglass-reinforced urethane components for hoods, fenders, and spoilers respectively. The end result is a car weighing 684lbs less than the '06 SVT Cobra, with 500hp, and a grip that rivals the F14 Thomcat in generating G-forces in a curve. And the look of the car... well, what can we say - it's beautiful. The hockey-stick stripes down the side, the blacked-out hood, and the "BOSS 302" badges that appear to be slanted versions of the originals... The low, wide stance with the fat tires and daul exhausts plumbed to each rear corner... The fastback profile with a pronounced and functional front airdam... This car simply screams "Give me a track!" to whomever sees it.

Barney: As 11:00 am nears, the cars have had 3 warm-up laps and run 2 at speed, swapping leads and feeling each other out. As they come down the main stretch, the flagman prepares to startyet another fabled battle that will become lore of legends.... AND THEY'RE OFF!!!

Dave: Down the front straight reaching 115 before hitting the brakes to dive into turn 1. The Camaro has the inside line, so the Mustang holds back and falls in. They exit the turn nose to tail. As they go down the short straight towards the S-turns, the Mustang is powering up on the outside... but the Camaro again holds the preferred line - not giving in. They go throught the S's almost sharing paint. A short line to the chicane offers the Mustang no time to use the power it has, so they enter the chicane as a single unit, almost touching! Pulling slightly ahead, the Z/28 seems able to put power down in the curves a little better than the Boss - perhaps due to the staggered wheel sizes.

Barney: Coming out of the second set of S's, the Camaro is pulling out a carlength. But here they come down the backstretch - nearly a 3/4 mile stretch... and here comes the Boss 302, pulling out on the left and slowly easing by the Camaro! The Boss cuts back right, nearly skimming the front bumper of the Camaro as they line up to go into the hairpins! The Camaro is all over the back of the Mustang... almost pushing it through turns 11 and 12! Going into the uphill slalom, the Mustang has the line going into the right-hand curve, but the Camaro cuts left with the throttle down and takes the line away from the Mustang for the lefty! The Boss car falls in behind the Camaro to finish two right-handers dumping both cars out onto the frontstretch!

Dave: The Boss goes outside and gets a fender up to the Camaro's rear! It's a drag race to the finish line 4-tenths of a mile ahead! The Camaro is firmly planted and the engine is screaming loud! The Boss car is gaining slowly on the outside! What a thunderous roar! They pull up neck and neck as they approach the line! Here comes the flag! And the winner is... the @!8)&%#%@^658*$!*2!

Awww DAMMIT Barney! I got so excited I fell off the damn stool! Did you see who won?

Barney: Heck no, I was watching the flagman try to keep from falling! He dropped the flag from the pulpit! I thought you saw the finish - you were calling it!

Dave: Starter... come in starter...

Starter: This is the starter... go ahead.

Dave: Did you see who won?

Starter: Hell no... I got so excited waving the flag I let it slip and dropped it just as the cars got here! I was trying to catch it as they went under me. Damn near fell out of the pulpit too.

Dave: Did the video camera get it?

Cameraman: Sorry Dave, I jumped out of the seat to see the finish, and bumped the camera visor with my head, knocking the camera too low for the shot, and darn near knocking me out too. Sorry!

Dave: This is JUST GREAT, let's go ask the drivers who won.

Barney: Yeah right - like they are gonna tell us who won?!?!

Dave: OK then, I guess we'll just have to do it all over again. Call the drivers back out and everyone get back into position... Here we go again! :D

OK you knotheads - that was MY pipe-dream. :D
So who's gonna rain on my parade... :think:

I don't know, but if the new Cobra has a remnant of the GT40 in it, it'll handle and be fast.
I just finished a test article where the GT40 out "Hot-Lapped" the new "Ferrari" and "Porsche GT3"!!!, more grip in the turns and could accelerate harder out of them than the other two.
And it was the only one WITHOUT a "fancy-ceramic"-blah-blah-blah braking system...:think:
These are exiting days when the best Europe has to offer is chasing an American car!...:eek: :D
Now, if we could get a C6 Z06 with 500Hp and a 5th Gen Camaro with 400HP, wouldn't the world just be a wonderful place?!..:D :bow:

Originally posted by ProudPony
So who's gonna rain on my parade... :think:

I will....cause we were comparing a Cobra with Z28, not a theoretical Boss 302! ;)

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
I will....cause we were comparing a Cobra with Z28, not a theoretical Boss 302! ;)

It's all theoretics;). Even the mentioned z28.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
I will....cause we were comparing a Cobra with Z28, not a theoretical Boss 302! ;)

YEAH... what RiceEating5.0 said... :p

When you show me your '07 Z/28, I'll show you my '07 Boss... :D

Besides, I'd rather see the Z/28-Boss pairing than Z/28-Cobra. I really think Ford is trying to separate Cobra from the Mustang main stream, and they are pitting Cobra against base C5/C6 in everything from mags to ads.

Don't want to hijack the thread or start a war, but a Z/28 should be a more expensive, specialized track car instead of the base V8 offering. This compares directly to the original intentions of the first Z/28 cars AND Boss 302's... 'nuf said.

Do 'em right, or don't do 'em at all - that's what I says...;)

Originally posted by ProudPony
I really think Ford is trying to separate Cobra from the Mustang main stream, and they are pitting Cobra against base C5/C6 in everything from mags to ads.

Interestingly, I'm now hearing less that Ford is going after the Vette with the Cobra (Mustang) and hearing more how they're going after BMW. Even more so now that the Shelby Cobra concept was unvieled at NAIAS.

It may have been mentioned here before, but it seems to me that Ford (SVT) isn't as interested in competing with GM as a lot of people think they are. Now that SVT is moving upscale, I think they will be setting their sites on BMW and Mercedes (AMG). These are interesting times.

PaperTarget

Originally posted by PaperTarget
Now that SVT is moving upscale, I think they will be setting their sites on BMW and Mercedes (AMG).

Ford SVT might be thinking that way, but the problem is it's Ford SVT. I can't see M and AMG buyers taking a Ford-badged vehicle into consideration. Wouldn't this kind of thing be best handled by a certain luxury division seemingly in need of some direction right now? :think:

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
Ford SVT might be thinking that way, but the problem is it's Ford SVT. I can't see M and AMG buyers taking a Ford-badged vehicle into consideration. Wouldn't this kind of thing be best handled by a certain luxury division seemingly in need of some direction right now? :think:

I agree. Their closest bet would be and SVT'd Lincoln or something. Even then, they'll have their work cut out for them. AMG is a big established player in their field.

Originally posted by ProudPony
Oh... Oh... I got one! I got one! Pick me! Pick me!....

OK Mrs. Johnson I'll tell MY story to the class.

Pick up the tele doing a live show. Dave Hill and Barney Hall are broadcasting live from the conning tower in the infield.

Dave: Spring has brought out the cherry tree blooms and the buttercups are lightly blanketed with dew as the morning sun rises to grace the scenery at Watkins Glen. As the sun gets the ashphalt warmed, so too are the engines warming.

Barney: The two have come to meet again... Mustang and Camaro. A 40 year old rivalry that has long since gone from the original cut-throat death battles to friendly jousts between old comrades, each taking their fair share of bruises, black eyes, and trophies.

The challenger, back from a recent vacation is the Camaro, sporting a new generation of the infamous LSx-series pushrod V8. The limited edition 2007 Z/28 package has optioned this animal well for todays track exercise, sporting the LS2 with "Z/28 SPECIAL PERFORMANCE" cam, exhaust and dry sump oiling system. M12 six speed. 18" front wheels, 19"rear wheels. Brembo brakes...14" front, 12" rear, with crossdrilled rotors. Certain structural components have been replaced with hydroformed aluminum. The shortened body, with proportions and styling hints slightly reminiscent of the 1969 Z/28 looks something like a virile body-builder with muscular bulges over the hood and rear fenders. Sharp creases separate the top of the car from the sides, and the hide-away headlamps provide a sinister looking grill that seems to beg for speed to feed air to the beast within. What can we say, the car simply looks awesome - even sitting still. Dave.

Dave: Thanks Barney. The defending champion, continuing to buck the naysayers and provide outstanding performance at a bargain price - The 2007 Boss 302. Ford has powered the animal with the all-alloy 5.0 cammer - a higher-revving, recently developed sibling of the proven 5.4-4V and 5.8L V10 powerplants used in Lightnings and Cobras. The Tremec M6 transmission routes power to the ground via the modified Control Blade IRS system, also borrowed from Cobra. Front suspension is a modified wishbone system, using driver-tuned Koni adjustable shocks and 1" lower-than-stock coils supplied by Eibach. 18" x 9" alloys all-around shod with Michelin Pilots further reduced the rotating mass. Sound-deadening was severely reduced in side walls and rear floor areas, Alloy K-members replace the old steel units used in the stock Mustang's front end, and the body incorporates aluminum and fiberglass-reinforced urethane components for hoods, fenders, and spoilers respectively. The end result is a car weighing 684lbs less than the '06 SVT Cobra, with 500hp, and a grip that rivals the F14 Thomcat in generating G-forces in a curve. And the look of the car... well, what can we say - it's beautiful. The hockey-stick stripes down the side, the blacked-out hood, and the "BOSS 302" badges that appear to be slanted versions of the originals... The low, wide stance with the fat tires and daul exhausts plumbed to each rear corner... The fastback profile with a pronounced and functional front airdam... This car simply screams "Give me a track!" to whomever sees it.

Barney: As 11:00 am nears, the cars have had 3 warm-up laps and run 2 at speed, swapping leads and feeling each other out. As they come down the main stretch, the flagman prepares to startyet another fabled battle that will become lore of legends.... AND THEY'RE OFF!!!

Dave: Down the front straight reaching 115 before hitting the brakes to dive into turn 1. The Camaro has the inside line, so the Mustang holds back and falls in. They exit the turn nose to tail. As they go down the short straight towards the S-turns, the Mustang is powering up on the outside... but the Camaro again holds the preferred line - not giving in. They go throught the S's almost sharing paint. A short line to the chicane offers the Mustang no time to use the power it has, so they enter the chicane as a single unit, almost touching! Pulling slightly ahead, the Z/28 seems able to put power down in the curves a little better than the Boss - perhaps due to the staggered wheel sizes.

Barney: Coming out of the second set of S's, the Camaro is pulling out a carlength. But here they come down the backstretch - nearly a 3/4 mile stretch... and here comes the Boss 302, pulling out on the left and slowly easing by the Camaro! The Boss cuts back right, nearly skimming the front bumper of the Camaro as they line up to go into the hairpins! The Camaro is all over the back of the Mustang... almost pushing it through turns 11 and 12! Going into the uphill slalom, the Mustang has the line going into the right-hand curve, but the Camaro cuts left with the throttle down and takes the line away from the Mustang for the lefty! The Boss car falls in behind the Camaro to finish two right-handers dumping both cars out onto the frontstretch!

Dave: The Boss goes outside and gets a fender up to the Camaro's rear! It's a drag race to the finish line 4-tenths of a mile ahead! The Camaro is firmly planted and the engine is screaming loud! The Boss car is gaining slowly on the outside! What a thunderous roar! They pull up neck and neck as they approach the line! Here comes the flag! And the winner is... the @!8)&%#%@^658*$!*2!

Awww DAMMIT Barney! I got so excited I fell off the damn stool! Did you see who won?

Barney: Heck no, I was watching the flagman try to keep from falling! He dropped the flag from the pulpit! I thought you saw the finish - you were calling it!

Dave: Starter... come in starter...

Starter: This is the starter... go ahead.

Dave: Did you see who won?

Starter: Hell no... I got so excited waving the flag I let it slip and dropped it just as the cars got here! I was trying to catch it as they went under me. Damn near fell out of the pulpit too.

Dave: Did the video camera get it?

Cameraman: Sorry Dave, I jumped out of the seat to see the finish, and bumped the camera visor with my head, knocking the camera too low for the shot, and darn near knocking me out too. Sorry!

Dave: This is JUST GREAT, let's go ask the drivers who won.

Barney: Yeah right - like they are gonna tell us who won?!?!

Dave: OK then, I guess we'll just have to do it all over again. Call the drivers back out and everyone get back into position... Here we go again! :D

OK you knotheads - that was MY pipe-dream. :D
So who's gonna rain on my parade... :think: :D

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
I agree. Their closest bet would be and SVT'd Lincoln or something. Even then, they'll have their work cut out for them. AMG is a big established player in their field.

At this point in time I can agree that most M or AMG buyers don't consider Ford products. After all, why buy an expensive Mustang when you can have an M3 or AMG CLK55. At this point. With the ST badge that's going to come out on most regular Ford cars and trucks, the SVT badge has to go somewhere. Why not Lincoln? Or even Mercury? Just as GM is currently changing people's perceptions of quality, I think Ford too will start changing people's perceptions of performance AND quality. I think it will be a couple of years though before we start seeing these changes roll out.

Yeah, SVT says they're going after BMW. Ummm who else says that....oh yeah, Pontiac is too. Lemme see....what about Cadillac?

In fact, just about every manufacturer mentions BMW when they announce some new direction they'll be considering.

Let's face it......at the end of the day, it's going to be Camaro vs Mustang....just like it's always been.


And BTW...I really like my Nurburgring scenario.:p

Unless Ford hase some vehicles comming that nobody here knows about, I don't see how SVT can compete with BMW. Unless they make an SVT Lincoln LS.

I mean the SVT Cobra. Focus, and Lightning don't match up well with the M3, M5, and X5. Its just not competition and its almost laughable to compare it that way. Whats next SVT takes on Hummer and Jeep with a SVT Escape... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by 99SilverSS
Unless Ford hase some vehicles comming that nobody here knows about, I don't see how SVT can compete with BMW. Unless they make an SVT Lincoln LS.

I mean the SVT Cobra. Focus, and Lightning don't match up well with the M3, M5, and X5. Its just not competition and its almost laughable to compare it that way. Whats next SVT takes on Hummer and Jeep with a SVT Escape... :rolleyes:

Like I said, at this point. However, surprises are coming down the line. Ford, and its other divisions, are releasing a lot of new vehicles. The 2005 Mustang is a vast improvement (interior wise) over the last few model Mustangs. Just about everyone here agrees the GTO is a great car even if it has bland looks. I feel it's comparable to a BMW in many ways. The common person's perception is that it's not as good as a BMW. Why is it so hard to believe that a 2005 Mustang interior, which appears to be excellent and of great quality, is any worse than the GTO's or a BMW's? Many here feel the GTO is competing against the Mustang Cobra. Others compare it to BMW. Seems to me that you could compare the Cobra and the BMW as well.

Originally posted by 99SilverSS
Unless Ford hase some vehicles comming that nobody here knows about, I don't see how SVT can compete with BMW. Unless they make an SVT Lincoln LS.

I mean the SVT Cobra. Focus, and Lightning don't match up well with the M3, M5, and X5. Its just not competition and its almost laughable to compare it that way. Whats next SVT takes on Hummer and Jeep with a SVT Escape... :rolleyes:

Purely my opinion here, but Ford may actually be on it's way to BMW-level vehicles in the next few years. They have a GREAT start with the interiors and ergonomics they are rolling out in the last 8 months.

If you haven't been in a 2004 Navigator, you MUST go to a dealer this weekend and sit in one. They are truely awesome. The same level of quality is apparent in the Aviator, the Expedition, the Explorer, the new LS's, and of course the Mustang. You don't have to like the styling or the colors, but look at the materials and the quality of craftsmanship - it's not just OK, it's good, real good!

If they roll that kind of quality into the other areas of the vehicles without doubling the prices, Ford is going places - and BMW/Mercedes better be watching carefully. Road noise is down and ride quality will go up with the intro of new cars on new platforms. The new LS is already getting rave reviews for it's handling, quality, and power.

As for upcoming surprises....
I will leak a tidbit to you for consideration...
I have seen correspondence from Phil Martens, Ford's vice president of North American product creation, dated 13 Jan 04 which states clearly that Ford is presently developing 10 units based on the DEW98 platform, to be offered under Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln badges.
(Z284ever, there's another hint about the Cougar... you find anything else? ;) )

Originally posted by 99SilverSS
Unless Ford hase some vehicles comming that nobody here knows about, I don't see how SVT can compete with BMW. Unless they make an SVT Lincoln LS.

I mean the SVT Cobra. Focus, and Lightning don't match up well with the M3, M5, and X5. Its just not competition and its almost laughable to compare it that way. Whats next SVT takes on Hummer and Jeep with a SVT Escape... :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, forgot about these "new cars" we don't know about yet either...
New subcompact wagons and coupes based on a new platform also shared with Mazda. Ford is going after the youth that favors cars like the Toyota Scion.

Quote...
"...Commenting on the success of Toyota's Scion xB, Martens said: "I think the market is ready for that. It is nice to let others lead the way because it is a tough market to crack. We can be very effective as a fast follower."...

...The platform is expected to generate 1 million vehicles annually by the end of the decade. Among the vehicles that will be based on that platform are the next-generation Mazda2 and Mazda Demio along with Ford's Fiesta, Fusion, Ka, Ikon and Ecostar...


Interesting, no?
I have not heard a name for the new platform yet.
guionM - maybe you or someone else can share some insight?

Rear quarter windows in the new Mustang looks like ass. It looks like about 6 months ago someone was sitting around and went "Hey Wang!" or whatever the engineer's name is...."we forgot the rear quater panel windows"...so they jury rigged the ones in there.

Do you honestly think that Ford in their current situation actually mad the decision to use an IRS based on what enthusiast think? They we trying to save a dollar...it's that simple. An IRS makes a better all around car than a solid rear..no one can argue that. I am willing to bet a I know what happened to....

Ford looked at the DEW IRS and realized it was too expensive because of it's use of alloy's and all. So rather than redesign a cheaper (and probaly heavier IRS), they therw a solid rear on there and called it a day. Then they can use a derivitive of the current expensive IRS on the higher margin Cobra's.

I remember a few years back Ford had to recall the then new Thunderbird bacause they were catching fire. What happened was the battery is mounted in the trunk under the spare tire jack. Ford was too cheap to put two thirty cent terminal connectors over the battery terminals, so on a few cars, the jack/lugwrench would jar loose, fall on the terminal, and ground out to the frame causing a fire. all over thirty cents...

PaperTraget, and ProudPony those are both good points about Ford's future. But the fact that Ford has a better looking interior or several new models comming out to compete with the Scion all the way to Lincoln's is nice but the idea of competing with BMW still isn't here. I suppose you could say on paper the Mustang and 3 Series coupe are competitors as well as the Thunderbird and Z4 but thats on paper. No matter how good Ford gets its products the people that buy BMW's won't notice and the Ford buyers won't add the local BMW dealer on their list of competing models to scope out. Just ain't going to happen. Different buyers and different kinds of vehicles.

Now Lincoln can go after BMW but Ford needs to stick with Chevy, Dodoge, Toyota, VW and Honda as competitors. There isn't enough market for Ford in the BMW range anyway.

I see your point 99SilverSS, but I believe I'm looking a little farther into the future. Perception is a hard thing to change as GM and Ford both know. It could easily take the next decade for both companies to convince car buyers (mostly Americans) that our cars have as good as or even better quality than the imports from Asia and Europe. I think GM is perceived to be in a better position to do this than Ford currently is. They need to take the initiative now and advertise as much as possible. The GTO is a good start, but I've not even seen the GTO commercial on TV!!! If GM doesn't change something soon, Ford WILL get the upper hand as they are starting to roll out some very nice cars and trucks.

Formula79, I also agree that Ford is being a tad cheap with some components of the Mustang. However, this will probably be THE best Mustang that has ever rolled off the assembly line to date. One of the biggest problems with the solid rear axle is unsprung weight. But Ford has addressed this by going with an aluminum axle. Check out this picture http://www.2005mustang.us/05/64.jpg
Seeing how this is a lighter rearend than previous ones and a better design than the previous ones, I believe ride quality AND handling will be much better. Looks are subjective though. I happen to think the rear quarter windows are fine. I'm not crazy about the grill lights, but there will be endless amounts of customizations that will come out for this car. I see a huge aftermarket for it.

No doubt Ford is needing to pinch a few pennies here and there as well. Jac didn't exactly leave Ford in good shape. But I think they're on the right track now. Signing on with Carroll Shelby and building/selling an image enhancer like the GT(40) are great steps to getting them out of the proverbial hole in the ground.

BTW ProudPony, I'm looking forward to the Cougar. If they're going to do what I think they are, then I would probably buy it over the Mustang for my next V8 RWD car.

Originally posted by PaperTarget
However, this will probably be THE best Mustang that has ever rolled off the assembly line to date. One of the biggest problems with the solid rear axle is unsprung weight. But Ford has addressed this by going with an aluminum axle. Check out this picture http://www.2005mustang.us/05/64.jpg


I think that housing is cast iron, but was painted silver for a prettier PR photo.

ProudPony, guess who, etc...

any input?

I noticed that "color" makes a big difference to how this New Mustang looks, I tend to favor the lighter colors b/c it even makes the front end look good. That to me, is the only part of the car that's a little TOO retro..can't wait to see the aftermarket stuff..

Originally posted by Z284ever
I think that housing is cast iron, but was painted silver for a prettier PR photo.

ProudPony, guess who, etc...

any input?

The center housing is cast iron. The rest is aluminum. And yes, it was painted silver. But over all, lighter and just as strong as the older rear.

Got this from my C&D mag. I only posted the key parts.

Title: Cobra Aspires to be M fighter.

Phil Martens has put his fingerprints all over the new mustang.....Martens also has an idea where the next SVT Cobra is headed: We have to have a Cobra that is world-class level. The old fox platform couldn't deliver that; this one can". Expect a bigger, broader separation between Mustang GT's and SVT Cobra's, he says. BMW's M cars are serving as inspiration....The expectation in this category is for a much more refined product.

"Also likely: supercharging and a substantial increase from the current Cobra's 390 hp. Ford has set no firm price ceiling, Martens says. "The only restriction is that you have to build it on the mustang line, and the quality has to be there.".

Kinda goes hand in hand with the other article on SVT wanting to up the craftsmanship, quality, and refinement of the Cobra and them wanting to give it an upscale image. Whether it'll be good enough to be compared to BMW M is yet to be known, but from the sounds of it, SVT might have one heck of a Cobra in the plans.

Man, what is with Ford?

It doesn't matter how much horsepower you throw at the car...BMW owners are not going to give a Mustang a second glance, I'm sorry to say, just like the GTO. :rolleyes:

Instead of everyone trying to be like BMW I'd like to see our manufacturers develop their own indentities. You know, ones that don't include $50,000 pony cars.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
Man, what is with Ford?

It doesn't matter how much horsepower you throw at the car...BMW owners are not going to give a Mustang a second glance, I'm sorry to say, just like the GTO. :rolleyes:

Instead of everyone trying to be like BMW I'd like to see our manufacturers develop their own indentities. You know, ones that don't include $50,000 pony cars.

Man I could not agree more!

It is my understanding the axle is stamped steel/cast iron.
If they did do the whole thing in alum. I think there would be some reliability issues!:eek: :D

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
Man, what is with Ford?

It doesn't matter how much horsepower you throw at the car...BMW owners are not going to give a Mustang a second glance, I'm sorry to say, just like the GTO. :rolleyes:

Instead of everyone trying to be like BMW I'd like to see our manufacturers develop their own indentities. You know, ones that don't include $50,000 pony cars.

While i agree with you, a much better Mustang (in terms of equipment, refinement, quality, performance, etc...) isn't something i'd object to.

It doesn't matter how much horsepower you throw at the car...BMW owners are not going to give a Mustang a second glance, I'm sorry to say, just like the GTO.

I have to disagree, I know of a few doctors who buy these cars like Mustangs and Camaro's etc, for their children and for everyday/work vehicles. Most of them are money conscious and if the quality is good, resale is decent, they'll buy more of them...

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
While i agree with you, a much better Mustang (in terms of equipment, refinement, quality, performance, etc...) isn't something i'd object to.

Oh no doubt...but at what price??? For that matter, when is a Mustang/Camaro not a Mustang/Camaro anymore? That is the age-old question that Ford at least may be determined to answer. :no:

I think the Mustang looks cool. I would like to test drive it.

You guys are forgetting....BMW has "peaked" ... Their newer cars are not as good looking as the ones they replaced (Z-4, 5-series, 7-series....) and have lost some of the "BMW-ness" focus on ride and handling - now they are focused on crap like i-drive and electric variable steering (how can you have handling perfection when you never know exactly how much the front wheels will turn when you turn the wheel??) Their quality is also hurting compared to compeitors...

It's a perfect time for Ford, Cadillac, Pontiac and Infiniti to go after BMW. They've lost their focus and don't even know it.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson

Instead of everyone trying to be like BMW I'd like to see our manufacturers develop their own indentities. You know, ones that don't include $50,000 pony cars.

I too agree - I don't want to see the Mustang - especially the entire lineup - go to an upscale, high-dollar tecno-ride. I've said that time and time again. In fact, that's why I've stuck to my guns about this IRS-thing.

However, as long as substantial effort is made to distinguish the "Super Mustang" model from the base and GT models, I have no problems with a $50k offering. It serves many purposes, like development of cool parts and upgrade equipment that base-car buyers can aspire to "add" to their base units as DIY's for starters. It also keeps the whole car line in respectable light as far as public perception goes - nobody will associate a $50k car with "trailer-park-trash", right?

Again, my approval for such upscale projects is based on separation and independence from the base units. Notice how there are NO MUSTANG EMBLEMS or names in the SVT Cobra? No Running Horses on the outside? etc.
And don't go charging the mass buyers for all the development costs of the "super Mustang" units either. Let the upscale parts and peices justify themselves. The base cars eat all the cost for body, chassis, and system development anyhow - don't make them any more burdened with costs for "toys" that they can't use IMO.

But also, I'd like to see us (Ford AND GM) not specifically target a particular maker or brand, but instead concentrate on simply doing things the right way - great designs, great quality, great craftsmanship, and delivering the styles people want... if we do that, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Toyota, Honda, and everyone else will have major problems to deal with, not just one model!

Originally posted by ProudPony


Again, my approval for such upscale projects is based on separation and independence from the base units. Notice how there are NO MUSTANG EMBLEMS or names in the SVT Cobra? No Running Horses on the outside? etc.

except for that big-ass running horse in the grill,you are correct.

Originally posted by ProudPony
Quote...
"...Commenting on the success of Toyota's Scion xB, Martens said: "I think the market is ready for that. It is nice to let others lead the way because it is a tough market to crack. We can be very effective as a fast follower."...

...The platform is expected to generate 1 million vehicles annually by the end of the decade. Among the vehicles that will be based on that platform are the next-generation Mazda2 and Mazda Demio along with Ford's Fiesta, Fusion, Ka, Ikon and Ecostar...


Interesting, no?
I have not heard a name for the new platform yet.
guionM - maybe you or someone else can share some insight?

It's Mazda's new platform that Ford is using world-wide. Yep, I've heard of it.

Originally posted by formula79
Rear quarter windows in the new Mustang looks like ass. It looks like about 6 months ago someone was sitting around and went "Hey Wang!" or whatever the engineer's name is...."we forgot the rear quater panel windows"...so they jury rigged the ones in there.

Do you honestly think that Ford in their current situation actually mad the decision to use an IRS based on what enthusiast think? They we trying to save a dollar...it's that simple. An IRS makes a better all around car than a solid rear..no one can argue that. I am willing to bet a I know what happened to....

Ford looked at the DEW IRS and realized it was too expensive because of it's use of alloy's and all. So rather than redesign a cheaper (and probaly heavier IRS), they therw a solid rear on there and called it a day. Then they can use a derivitive of the current expensive IRS on the higher margin Cobra's..

Mustang's Chief Engineer is Hau Thai-Tang. His responsibility is the engineering direction of the car (he ran Ford's CART program & was development manager of the DEW98 (Lincoln LS & Jaguar) chassis. Ford essentially made the platform's father the head guy of Mustang (much the same way Dave Hill ran F & Y bodies). Like Dave Hill, he has no bearing on design and has to take orders from the people allocating the money and the people doing the actual design.

He has as much to do with Mustang's rear window as John Coletti (SVT director) does.

Any design issues anyone has should go to Larry Erickson who is Mustang's actual head designer.

Issues with Mustang's live axle instead of IRS is well advised to direct their correspondance to Richard Parry-Jones who runs product development, and the allocations ($$$) for the Mustang program.

Any general issues you have with anything about the Mustang, your point of contact is Mark Rushbrook, vehicle development manager for the entire 2005 Mustang Program.

All the above mentioned have close contact with actual Mustang owners and related surveys, input, etc..., and take these inputs & surveys very very seriously I can assure you. A few of them are also amazingly accessible to the average Mustang enthusiast.

For the record, I love the rear windows, and the IRS that was initially to be on the Mustang was actually opposed by Mustang enthusiasts in owner surveys. The back tracking to a live axle is at least as much a response to these surveys as it is to cost cutting.

Any idea that Ford simply stuck a live axle on the Mustang in opposition to owner preference, or did it simply to save money is completely and totally false.

Hard to believe, but totally true. :shock:

""We talked to a lot of Mustang owners when we were developing this program," said Hau Thai-Tang, chief nameplate engineer. "They are a very passionate group, and a lot of them told us – very strongly – that the all-new Mustang must have a solid rear axle."

2005 Mustang overview:
http://www.mustangheaven.com/2005mustang/drivingd.htm

"According to Hau Thai-Tang, chief nameplate engineer for the new Mustang, the solid axle is superior to an independent system for drag racing, something 30 per cent of Mustang owners participate in, said Thai-Tang."
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/autos/story/1605387p-1883794c.html

Originally posted by guionM


Any idea that Ford simply stuck a live axle on the Mustang in opposition to owner preference, or did it simply to save money is completely and totally false.



I agree that Ford is truly fantastic about listening to their enthusiasts. SVT owners in particular, are allowed great access and input.

But I have a feeling that Ford really lucked out on this one. A large segment of Mustang enthusiasts wanted a live rear axle......Ford management wanted a live rear axle......what a beautiful thing! Ford can save afew bucks and make some enthusiasts happy.

I just wonder what might have happened if Mustang enthusiasts, demanded a DEW98 chassis/suspension in Mustang, unchanged,....multi-link IRS and SLA front and all. Would Ford have coughed up the cash to make everyone happy?

Or ........ I wonder if a live rear axle offered no cost savings, (or say it was even more expensive ), over IRS.....what would Ford have done......would they have listened to their fans?

http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=412897

Stangnet poll. So far 92 have vote.

For:
IRS - 54 votes - 58.7%
Live - 38 votes - 41.3%

While most would prefer the IRS, a good chunk seem to want the live axle as well. This is among enthusiasts though and so i don't know how the general buying public would factor into it. They probably couldn't tell them apart anyway.

The best thing to do was have the IRS as an extra cost option. That way, those who want it have that option, and those that don't want it have the option of sticking with the standard live axle.

Yeah, interesting poll and thread, 5.0.

Over the past year or so, there have have been some raging debates on this at BON. I always got the impression that the IRS proponents were in the majority.

One thing that gets lost in the IRS debate is whether the IRS is designed worth a damn.

In other words, the Ford guys have been burned for the last 3 Cobra revisions by a POS IRS, and they're gun shy of the whole damn thing.

So before the bowtie fans go off chanting IRS for the 5th gen, think about this. You may get what you ask for.

The camaro is a budget performance car. The 2 key words are budget and performance. In other words, you may expect vette quality IRS and instead get some flimsy cost saving kluge like the current stang has got.

Course we have the GTO to examine first. If its IRS passes all the torture tests of serious drag racing, then I'd say 5th gen fans have nothing to worry about in a future IRS.

Originally posted by hp_nut

The camaro is a budget performance car. The 2 key words are budget and performance.



I think Cobalt SS is the new budget performance car from Chevy. Camaro will remain the "attainable" big bang for the buck, performance car.

It is inconcievable to me that a 5th gen Camaro will have anything less than an excellently engineered IRS. I certainly think that dynamics as good as Sigma's are to be expected.

Bob Lutz even said so, when asked about GM's new volume RWD platform a year or two ago.

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=412897

Stangnet poll. So far 92 have vote.

For:
IRS - 54 votes - 58.7%
Live - 38 votes - 41.3%

While most would prefer the IRS, a good chunk seem to want the live axle as well. This is among enthusiasts though and so i don't know how the general buying public would factor into it. They probably couldn't tell them apart anyway.

The best thing to do was have the IRS as an extra cost option. That way, those who want it have that option, and those that don't want it have the option of sticking with the standard live axle.

Ask this on the Corral.

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=412897

Stangnet poll. So far 92 have vote.

For:
IRS - 54 votes - 58.7%
Live - 38 votes - 41.3%

While most would prefer the IRS, a good chunk seem to want the live axle as well. This is among enthusiasts though and so i don't know how the general buying public would factor into it. They probably couldn't tell them apart anyway.

The best thing to do was have the IRS as an extra cost option. That way, those who want it have that option, and those that don't want it have the option of sticking with the standard live axle.


I think the general public would prefer the IRS definatly. For people that know even a little about cars, they probably know that IRS is good and a live axle is old and antiquated and is a throwback to another time..................so they always say. So I think that it is only the enthusiasts that want the Live axle for drag racing but this puzzles me a bit since the GT has never been the drag racer and has always been kinda behind in power. It would seem to me to make both types of rears available on the Cobra, or at least on a higher model ala Mach 1.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
...since the GT has never been the drag racer and has always been kinda behind in power.
How you figure?!?! I don't see it that way. Nowadays, if you want a base V8 unit - it HAS to be a GT.
What better car is there to turn into a budget-minded drag car?
Now in yesteryear - the 5.0LX was lighter than the GT from '87-'93, so I could see the comment where the GT was not the desired Drag car due to weight of the airdam and spoilers.
But since '93, a GT is where V8 life begins, which means cheapest car for drag mods to begin.

It would seem to me to make both types of rears available on the Cobra, or at least on a higher model ala Mach 1.
I'd rather see IRS on a Boss 302, or Cobra.
Mach 1 should be drag racing oriented. The originals were intended to be cars that a DIY-guy could make into anything he wanted, but they were cheap from the dealer. That means basic equipment - for go-fast service - not ride quality or luxury.

For me personally Ford has it backward. Give the GT and V6 models the IRS. Its better for daily driving and occasional track use. Give the most powerful Stangs, Cobra's Mach 1's and or Boss's the solid axle. While giving them the option to have IRS as a no cost option. This way the best performing Stangs have the advantage of the solid axle for track duty and for those who want the IRS can have it too. This will also put Ford in a position to use less costly parts in the IRS since it will used primarily for 200-300hp Mustangs. This will also help lower costs since the higher volume of Stangs will have IRS Ford can spread out the costs. After all a SC'd Stang is a better drag car than road racer. Leave that to the Boss or GT.

I look at it this way. The Mustang doesn't NEED IRS. Sure it would be nice, but not necessary. I for one will test drive it to see how much better/worse the new rear is. From what I've read and seen so far it looks like it will be very nice.

For those of you who think the Camaro will have the upper hand if it comes out in 2007 with IRS, I should remind you the Mustang was designed with IRS originally. What makes you think Ford would leave it solid when their competitor is using IRS? Ford could easily put IRS under the Mustang in 2007. The Cobra comes out in 2005 (as a 2006) with IRS. The IRS technology and parts will already be there! All they'll have to do is bolt it up on the assembly line. I just don't see GM pulling any fast ones on Ford as far as the Camaro goes. Other than possible DoD technology, there's nothing GM can add on extra that Ford can't have ready by 2007. The question is, would GM put DoD in a Camaro? I really think we'll have to see how that works first in other cars.

Originally posted by 99SilverSS
For me personally Ford has it backward. Give the GT and V6 models the IRS. Its better for daily driving and occasional track use. Give the most powerful Stangs, Cobra's Mach 1's and or Boss's the solid axle. While giving them the option to have IRS as a no cost option. This way the best performing Stangs have the advantage of the solid axle for track duty and for those who want the IRS can have it too. This will also put Ford in a position to use less costly parts in the IRS since it will used primarily for 200-300hp Mustangs. This will also help lower costs since the higher volume of Stangs will have IRS Ford can spread out the costs. After all a SC'd Stang is a better drag car than road racer. Leave that to the Boss or GT.

A different take on things, but I can't argue much.
After all, you said it was your opinion!:D

I basically agree. But I still have a hard time swallowing the added cost to the base cars for a marginal improvement in handling and ride. If it were a Lincoln or even Mercury - OK, no question. But a BASE MUSTANG? Hard call.

I think folks just want to look good, and pay as little as possible for it. That's my opinion!:thumb:

Originally posted by PaperTarget


I just don't see GM pulling any fast ones on Ford as far as the Camaro goes. Other than possible DoD technology, there's nothing GM can add on extra that Ford can't have ready by 2007.


It's not necessarily add-ons but just more or better of what is there already (ie more power, better chassis, ect). Do I know this for a fact, sure don't. GM has been pulling a fast one on Ford with the F-body for many years up to it's departure in 02' so don't think it can't be done. I think it is pretty much certain that the new Camaro will have IRS so I think the Mustang will have to follow if they want to keep up. This will drive the price up of the Mustang line. It has been said that a base 05' GT will start at about 25k, if that is true, add IRS, and other options and it will be close to 30k for a nicely equipped GT. We also know that the Camaro will get the LS2 which is far more powerful than the GT's 4.6 and if the two are even close in price, the GT is in trouble.

Maybe Ford is under the assumption that the Mustang does not need to compete head to head with the Camaro like before and they can get away with having less in many areas vs the Camaro. I don't know if they would actually do that or think in that way but as it seems right now, Ford may have to step it up for the 07 model year. Those special editions better start rolling out at a good price.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
It's not necessarily add-ons but just more or better of what is there already (ie more power, better chassis, ect). Do I know this for a fact, sure don't. GM has been pulling a fast one on Ford with the F-body for many years up to it's departure in 02' so don't think it can't be done. I think it is pretty much certain that the new Camaro will have IRS so I think the Mustang will have to follow if they want to keep up. This will drive the price up of the Mustang line. It has been said that a base 05' GT will start at about 25k, if that is true, add IRS, and other options and it will be close to 30k for a nicely equipped GT. We also know that the Camaro will get the LS2 which is far more powerful than the GT's 4.6 and if the two are even close in price, the GT is in trouble.

Maybe Ford is under the assumption that the Mustang does not need to compete head to head with the Camaro like before and they can get away with having less in many areas vs the Camaro. I don't know if they would actually do that or think in that way but as it seems right now, Ford may have to step it up for the 07 model year. Those special editions better start rolling out at a good price.

Let me introduce you to Mustang 101 - I'll be your professor....

Ford has - for the last 17 years no less - conceeded the performance edge to GM's F-cars, no question. Could Ford have made the Mustang faster - ooohhh hhaaayyelll yyaaeeessss. Ford has all the parts right in their own FRPP catalog - been available from Ford, made by Ford, sold through Ford, since the mid-'80's. All they had to do was put those parts in the car on the assembly line and bingo... faster Mustang GT or LX or whatever.

So why didn't they do it? They don't want to!!! Marketing has shown that most folks want a great sounding V8 or V6, they never race their cars, and the 0-60 times are of little or no concern. Deliver a basic car to these people for minimal $, and they are happy campers.

For the remainder of the crowd that DOES care about 0-60 times, 1/4 mile times, and track work, let them buy the basic car - cheap as possible - and it becomes the platform from which they can build the car the way they want it. They end up with exactly the car they want at a price they can absorb - no more, no less. They also get the thrill of doing a lot of the work themselves. Just how many real honest gear-heads buy a car and leave it stock? So why pay more for an original intake making 320 hp instead of 260, just to take it off and replace it with an intake making 360 hp? See the point?

One need look no farther than the last F-bodies to see that GM's obviously-faster and better-handling Z28 was outsold many fold by a lesser performing GT - and the GT owners are mostly tickled pink with them. Even the Bullitt and now Mach owners too. They didn't WANT 450hp cars, or they'd have bought Roushes and Saleens.

Instead of putting the performance goodies on the production cars and not giving the public an option, Ford has opted to invest in development of better race-inspired parts, engineer the cars to accept these parts easily and vice versa, and also to invest in aftermarket development and tuners that promote the sales of the stock cars as well.

I know this is a bizzarre concept for many to grasp - but it works. It has worked for 17 years now, so it is not a fluke. I want Ford to keep doing exactly what they have - making the basic cars cheap and accessible to the masses. Make them "mod-friendly", and keep pumping the aftermarket with money and support.
Honestly, I couldn't care one drop less if the next Camaro (SS or Z28 or WhAtEvEr) is faster than the GT off the showroom floor, stock for stock - just so long as they make one.
We'll see which one is faster at the track on Saturday night!;)

End of class.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
It's not necessarily add-ons but just more or better of what is there already (ie more power, better chassis, ect). Do I know this for a fact, sure don't. GM has been pulling a fast one on Ford with the F-body for many years up to it's departure in 02' so don't think it can't be done.

That first sentence is kind of ironic. Isn't that what GM thought it was doing up until its departure? It didn't seem to work very well (don't misunderstand, I'm not bashing the Camaro/Firebird). It's almost as if you're saying people didn't buy it because it was better??? I understand what you're saying from a "performance" point of view. But that's not how most people think.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I think it is pretty much certain that the new Camaro will have IRS so I think the Mustang will have to follow if they want to keep up. This will drive the price up of the Mustang line. It has been said that a base 05' GT will start at about 25k, if that is true, add IRS, and other options and it will be close to 30k for a nicely equipped GT. We also know that the Camaro will get the LS2 which is far more powerful than the GT's 4.6 and if the two are even close in price, the GT is in trouble.

I don't think IRS will be that much more of a cost causing Ford to go bankrupt trying to put it on the Mustang. With 10 other cars coming out on this chassis, I'm sure some of those will have IRS (Lincoln/Mercury). That will spread costs out nicely. What I don't understand is why you say, "add IRS, AND OTHER OPTIONS"??? What does that have to do with the additional cost of IRS? The same options on a possible 2007 Camaro will no doubt put it into $30k territory as well. I agree the possible base V8 2007 Camaro (Z/28) will probably have a more powerful LS2 motor compared to the base V8 Mustang's 4.6L, one must take into account any special edition Mustangs (Mach1, Boss, Cobra) that will no doubt have similar power. Even with comparable prices, Camaro will have to appeal to the general public in order to compete with the Mustang sales wise. My hope is that the possible 2007 Camaro will do very well. Whether or not it will do as well as the Mustang has yet to be seen. I don't think GM will be able to beat the price (option for option) of the Mustang. 2007 is too far away to know, so we'll have to wait and see.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Maybe Ford is under the assumption that the Mustang does not need to compete head to head with the Camaro like before and they can get away with having less in many areas vs the Camaro. I don't know if they would actually do that or think in that way but as it seems right now, Ford may have to step it up for the 07 model year. Those special editions better start rolling out at a good price.

Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. How will a two year head start affect a new Camaro? Will Ford need to produce special editions? I heard discussion a while back that Mach1 (or some variant) could become an option package for Mustangs. From what I understand, the special edtions were orginally produce to help keep interest in the Mustang, not to compete with or other cars (Camaro/Firebird). Obviously Ford found a new niche with these cars and demand was quite high for them. I for one hope they keep making them.

What I think is interesting is the possibility that a new Camaro will be MORE like a Mustang. If they make it like a Mustang AND if they make it more powerful, then there's a possibility that it can compete nicely with the Mustang as far as sales are concerned. We'll have to wait and see if this happens (let's keep our fingers crossed). It's been said that only Ford can make a Mustang. I have a feeling that GM might make a "copy" close to it called Camaro. 1967 all over again.

I am very aware of all that but, you can't just plan on people buying Mustangs over other cars just because they are Mustangs or a Ford. You missed my point, they may be right that they don't need to do anything to these cars to make them compete in the sales race, that is a very real possability. Mustang and Ford people will continue to buy Mustangs no matter what, no matter how much of a performance disadvantage they are at, BUT times do change and the reasons that some got turned off by the Camaro and went to Mustang will be addressed in the new Camaro so Ford can not plan on winning sales based on the old assumption that the people who want a more daily-driver friendly car will buy a Mustang.

Also, the only time I think the too much power argument comes into play is in a situation like if a parent is buying thier daughter a car and doesn't want her to have something she might not be able to control or something like that. I have never believed the whole "too much power" hypothesis when you are talking about 2 cars that are supoosed to have power and are not that far apart (260 vs 305).

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
It's not necessarily add-ons but just more or better of what is there already (ie more power, better chassis, ect). Do I know this for a fact, sure don't. GM has been pulling a fast one on Ford with the F-body for many years up to it's departure in 02' so don't think it can't be done. I think it is pretty much certain that the new Camaro will have IRS so I think the Mustang will have to follow if they want to keep up. This will drive the price up of the Mustang line. It has been said that a base 05' GT will start at about 25k, if that is true, add IRS, and other options and it will be close to 30k for a nicely equipped GT. We also know that the Camaro will get the LS2 which is far more powerful than the GT's 4.6 and if the two are even close in price, the GT is in trouble.

Maybe Ford is under the assumption that the Mustang does not need to compete head to head with the Camaro like before and they can get away with having less in many areas vs the Camaro. I don't know if they would actually do that or think in that way but as it seems right now, Ford may have to step it up for the 07 model year. Those special editions better start rolling out at a good price.

Until there is actually a camaro, why would Ford try to compete with a so far mythical car? And what makes you think that the same people who were responsible for saving the Mustang in 1989 are going to buy a camaro even if it's the best car in the market for it's price? This gap in time is only going to hurt the Camaro in my opinion because more GM enthusiasts with no other option are going to choose the Mustang in the meantime.

Originally posted by ProudPony
Let me introduce you to Mustang 101 - I'll be your professor....

Ford has - for the last 17 years no less - conceeded the performance edge to GM's F-cars, no question. Could Ford have made the Mustang faster - ooohhh hhaaayyelll yyaaeeessss. Ford has all the parts right in their own FRPP catalog - been available from Ford, made by Ford, sold through Ford, since the mid-'80's. All they had to do was put those parts in the car on the assembly line and bingo... faster Mustang GT or LX or whatever.

So why didn't they do it? They don't want to!!! Marketing has shown that most folks want a great sounding V8 or V6, they never race their cars, and the 0-60 times are of little or no concern. Deliver a basic car to these people for minimal $, and they are happy campers.

For the remainder of the crowd that DOES care about 0-60 times, 1/4 mile times, and track work, let them buy the basic car - cheap as possible - and it becomes the platform from which they can build the car the way they want it. They end up with exactly the car they want at a price they can absorb - no more, no less. They also get the thrill of doing a lot of the work themselves. Just how many real honest gear-heads buy a car and leave it stock? So why pay more for an original intake making 320 hp instead of 260, just to take it off and replace it with an intake making 360 hp? See the point?

One need look no farther than the last F-bodies to see that GM's obviously-faster and better-handling Z28 was outsold many fold by a lesser performing GT - and the GT owners are mostly tickled pink with them. Even the Bullitt and now Mach owners too. They didn't WANT 450hp cars, or they'd have bought Roushes and Saleens.

Instead of putting the performance goodies on the production cars and not giving the public an option, Ford has opted to invest in development of better race-inspired parts, engineer the cars to accept these parts easily and vice versa, and also to invest in aftermarket development and tuners that promote the sales of the stock cars as well.

I know this is a bizzarre concept for many to grasp - but it works. It has worked for 17 years now, so it is not a fluke. I want Ford to keep doing exactly what they have - making the basic cars cheap and accessible to the masses. Make them "mod-friendly", and keep pumping the aftermarket with money and support.
Honestly, I couldn't care one drop less if the next Camaro (SS or Z28 or WhAtEvEr) is faster than the GT off the showroom floor, stock for stock - just so long as they make one.
We'll see which one is faster at the track on Saturday night!;)

End of class.

Some people on here think that faster automatically means better. Rental car companies like the V-6 Mustang just fine and teens who can not afford a GT or it's insurance like the pony as well. The Mustang offers so many options of vehivles made and aftermarket support that it is a hard car to beat sales wise in the segment. I think that this trend will continue even if another Camaro is made.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I am very aware of all that but, you can't just plan on people buying Mustangs over other cars just because they are Mustangs or a Ford.

Mustang II anyone?



You missed my point, they may be right that they don't need to do anything to these cars to make them compete in the sales race, that is a very real possability. Mustang and Ford people will continue to buy Mustangs no matter what, no matter how much of a performance disadvantage they are at, BUT times do change and the reasons that some got turned off by the Camaro and went to Mustang will be addressed in the new Camaro so Ford can not plan on winning sales based on the old assumption that the people who want a more daily-driver friendly car will buy a Mustang.

I am curious that with the Mustang never leaving the market how many people will actually go in to test a new Camaro, especially if it continues the trend and is more expensive than the current Mustang it competes with. Ford will already have the aftermarket for enthusiasts, and the car will be entrenched for 3 model years into the public with all reviews, opinions etc already in their minds. The GM crowd will nontheless buy the new Camaro if it's out, but I doubt that no matter how good it is that it will overtake the Mustang in sales.


Also, the only time I think the too much power argument comes into play is in a situation like if a parent is buying thier daughter a car and doesn't want her to have something she might not be able to control or something like that. I have never believed the whole "too much power" hypothesis when you are talking about 2 cars that are supoosed to have power and are not that far apart (260 vs 305).

Rental car companies for insurance reasons as well and the Image that the V-6 Mustang is an entry level car and that the camaro is a brute. Before you laugh, I have heard this argument in many places. Do you remember the State Farm commercials that showed the spinning Camaro and the car wrecks saying that they were too fast for teens? Public perception often times does not match reality.

Quite honestly, I think the majority of people actually are afraid of cars with as much power as the LS1 Z's had.
I often hear comments like, "what do you need that much power for, the speed limit is still only 55.." Or, "if so and so had a car like that he'd get himself killed"..and ofcourse, "he couldn't afford the insurance on that thing"..

I think by Ford keeping the Mustang stradling the proverbial "fence", it has attracted sales from both sides. Those who want a "sporty looking" economical car, and those wanting a not so "hard core" , sports car, retaing good street manners and ride or comfort at an affordable price. BUT, by doing this it has also competed among its own company and hurt sales of its similar type cars. And most people I have talked to like the look of the Mustang over the 4th Gen Camaro's. I personally think by eliminating the "Side Mirror Cowls" they would've sold more cars..(MPO)
I think Chevy has to diversify its models of Camaro's to compete with the Mustang for sales.(when or if it returns..)And not just in power plant or performance options, but "Levels" in "ride", "handling", "comfort", and "appearance" and options...
From having a base model V6 Camaro w/o spoilers & ground effects with different wheel/tire options etc...to an ALL OUT "G-Machine" equipped with the latest hardware to compete with the best of it's class in performance!...

Posted by scott9050
This gap in time is only going to hurt the Camaro in my opinion because more GM enthusiasts with no other option are going to choose the Mustang in the meantime.

You're forgetting about the GTO, definitely an option...but I agree, it will hurt the Camaro by heavily shifting focus to the Mustang who recently gained a huge share of the market from the loss of its main competetor(s).

On the IRS subject, if it is a part of the platform used to revive the "F-Bodies" I can definitely see it coming standard, but with a small improvement in ride as compared to costs and added complexity, and set up required to produce. I can't see it justified on an "affordable" sports car, which the Camaro was already inflating out of...

I don't think the Camaro will overtake the Mustang in sales either and I have no doubts that even if the Camaro is superior in every way, the Mustang will still outsell the Camaro. As it seems now, the Camaro will not be made to be as high volume as the Mustang so that is another limiting factor.

I don't think the time delay of the release of the Camaro will have any effect on people buying the vehicle. People trade in vehicles like crazy to get a new model. I think the average duration of a car for a person is like 2 years which would put a Mustang buyer right at that point. Not to say that all of them will jump ship, some will, many won't. The bottom line is what matters to the consumer is a better product and what matters to the manufacturer is sales and profit so for me, I don't care about sales, I care about the product.....................just as long as GM can sell enough to keep it in production.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I don't think the Camaro will overtake the Mustang in sales either and I have no doubts that even if the Camaro is superior in every way, the Mustang will still outsell the Camaro. As it seems now, the Camaro will not be made to be as high volume as the Mustang so that is another limiting factor.

I don't think the time delay of the release of the Camaro will have any effect on people buying the vehicle. People trade in vehicles like crazy to get a new model. I think the average duration of a car for a person is like 2 years which would put a Mustang buyer right at that point. Not to say that all of them will jump ship, some will, many won't. The bottom line is what matters to the consumer is a better product and what matters to the manufacturer is sales and profit so for me, I don't care about sales, I care about the product.....................just as long as GM can sell enough to keep it in production. I have to agree with this statement. However Camaro very well could overtake Mustang in sales but not consistently over a long period of time. The biggest reason Camaro cant do it is because its the Mustang. Not because it may be faster, better quality, or better looking. None of that really matters too much. Its the Mustang and thats it. That fact alone limits Camaro's potential. Its like buying Quilted Northern or Charmin. Both wipe your ass just the same but more people buy Quilted Northern and thats how it is (hypothetical example). Its just the way things are. Plus Mustang has more special editions and Camaro has anniversary models which is about all, no more no less . But I too dont care at all as long as Camaro is good, is what it is supposed to be and is here to stay. I will buy it because I love Camaro, Chevrolet, and dislike Ford and I'm not a fan of Mustang whatsoever nor shall I ever be, but I respect it nonetheless.

I would like to test drive it then make my final thought.

Originally posted by CamaroBoy96Z28
I have to agree with this statement. However Camaro very well could overtake Mustang in sales but not consistently over a long period of time. The biggest reason Camaro cant do it is because its the Mustang. Not because it may be faster, better quality, or better looking. None of that really matters too much. Its the Mustang and thats it. That fact alone limits Camaro's potential. Its like buying Quilted Northern or Charmin. Both wipe your ass just the same but more people buy Quilted Northern and thats how it is (hypothetical example). Its just the way things are. Plus Mustang has more special editions and Camaro has anniversary models which is about all, no more no less . But I too dont care at all as long as Camaro is good, is what it is supposed to be and is here to stay. I will buy it because I love Camaro, Chevrolet, and dislike Ford and I'm not a fan of Mustang whatsoever nor shall I ever be, but I respect it nonetheless.

As a 4 time Mustang owner before buying my current Z28, let me say that you are wrong in your assesment that people buy Mustang only because of the name. There are people here who buy Camaros just because of the name. The assumption that just the name Mustang alone accounts for it's success is wrong in my case, and I feel the case of alot of people I met at Mustang meets.

The thing with Mustang is that it does everything well. It's fast, handles well, is comfortable, practical, simple (almost prehistoric), insanely simple to maintain, and most important: do-it-yourself-friendly!!!

It's rare to find a Mustang GT (or even old LX 5.0s) that hasn't had at least one modification. Ford's performance books all but encourage you to buy their aftermarket products. You walk by a newsstand and there are no fewer than 3 magazines that specifically deal with Mustangs and performance.

Camaro's problem IMHO is that it became nothing more than a barroom brawler in performance. While that appeals to our "engine-in-a-box" members here, it doesn't really stand out with anyone else. There's a pretty surprizing number of people here on this board that simply doesn't get it.

Camaro plainly outhandles Mustang. But how often you you actrually use that difference in handling between a GT and a Z28?? Chances are that outside a race track, you don't! 4th gen Z28s out accelerate and have a much higher top speed than GTs. Again, how often do you use that difference?? Current Mustangs can outrun everything in it's class except LS1 F-bodies. Is it worth the downsides?? To many people, it isn't.

From a quality standpoint, speaking from my own personal experience, my Mustangs were better made and more durable than my Z28 Camaro. Period! As far as living day to day with the car (ease of parking, ease of entry & exit, driving a car in traffic that doesn't feel as wide as a Hummer) the Mustang simply is a more liveable ride.

I came to my Z28 when Ford began going backwards in performance, began recalling cars with alarming regularity, and seeing dealer service start going down the tubes. My sister was happy with her Mustang but Ford's customer service of the late 1990s (she dealt with them in 2 states and 6 dealers, so it wasn't an isolated event) ran her away from Ford. She also turned to Camaro as well. In both cases, if Ford hadn't screwed up, we'd probally still be driving Mustangs.

I know that some of you like to cop-out on Mustang's success by calling it a "girls" car, clueless that men buy Stangs by a more than 2 to 1 margin over Camaros. Although it is convienent having a "ready made" performance car that sits low & wide, and has all these capabilities like the Camaro, speaking for myself I miss having a small, tossable car that I have a ton of things I can do to it. I can guarantee you I'm nowhere near alone on this.

In short, Camaro's problems have zilch to do with it's power. It has little to do with it's name not being "Mustang" (Camaro has outsold Mustang on quite a few occasions). It isn't because it appeals to women (the only cars that attract more men buyers are Hummers, F-bodies, Corvettes & Vipers... even SUVs attract more female buyers by % not to mention volume).

Camaro's problem is that it became nothing more than a no compromise performance vehicle that's unfrendly to do-it-yourselfers. That's the image that was cultivated, and that's why you have so many wrong views of Camaro:
*It's too expensive. (false-it costs roughly as much as comparable Mustangs)
*It's too powerful. (false- if you can handle a Mustang GT, you can handle a Z28)
*It's insurence is too high. (False- with very few exceptions, Camaros are cheaper to insure than Mustangs of the same year despite more powerful engines).

If the next Camaro has improved quality (it will), improved ease of entry & exit (it will), more do it yourself friendly (it seems like it might), is styled sporty without looking like a doorstop of an F16 (it will ;)) and looses the "No Compromise" attitude (works good with the study hall crowd, but doesn't translate well to sales) then it stands a very real chance compeating very well with the new Mustang.

Originally posted by guionM
From a quality standpoint, speaking from my own personal experience, my Mustangs were better made and more durable than my Z28 Camaro. Period! As far as living day to day with the car (ease of parking, ease of entry & exit, driving a car in traffic that doesn't feel as wide as a Hummer) the Mustang simply is a more liveable ride.


My experience as well. The question to ask is: If the Mustang and Camaro had EXACTLY the same Horsepower and Torque - which one would you choose?

I bet with the exception of the total GM die hards, most people would take the car that is more livable and "nimble" at lower speeds - the Mustang.

I'd take the car that was cooler overall, faster, handled better, looked better, suited me better, and braked better. Which equals the Camaro. :) I don't care if the power was the same, the Camaro is the better car that is true to a real sports/musclecar, not a sporty sedan-like car. Besides that its a F*rd. ;) You guys sound like so many LT1 owners I've talked to when it comes to reliablity and problems. You can't judge all Camaros though because of certain ones. I've heard the exact opposite about M*stangs even from M*stang owners, so it goes both ways.

Originally posted by IZ28
I'd take the car that was cooler overall, faster, handled better, looked better, suited me better, and braked better. Which equals the Camaro. :) I don't care if the power was the same, the Camaro is the better car that is true to a real sports/musclecar, not a sporty sedan-like car. Besides that its a F*rd. ;) You guys sound like so many LT1 owners I've talked to when it comes to reliablity and problems. You can't judge all Camaros though because of certain ones. I've heard the exact opposite about M*stangs even from M*stang owners, so it goes both ways. The Mustang is a Pony car and the original one at that. Some people think that the Mustang is cooler, better looking etc. Some don't like the plain Vanilla looks of the Z-28, the overdone batmobile looks of the Trans Am or the quirkiness of either. It's simply a matter of taste. To me the best looking 4th gen without a doubt was the 93-97 T/A.

Originally posted by scott9050
Some don't like the plain Vanilla looks of the Z-28,

Of course you're right.....but seeing the word vanilla and Z/28 in the same sentence, is so wrong on so many levels.:(

Originally posted by guionM


The thing with Mustang is that it does everything well. It's fast, handles well, is comfortable, practical, simple (almost prehistoric), insanely simple to maintain, and most important: do-it-yourself-friendly!!!

From a quality standpoint, speaking from my own personal experience, my Mustangs were better made and more durable than my Z28 Camaro. Period! As far as living day to day with the car (ease of parking, ease of entry & exit, driving a car in traffic that doesn't feel as wide as a Hummer) the Mustang simply is a more liveable ride.



I think the better statement is that the Mustang does nothing really well, but a lot of things mediocre.


I have never owned a Mustang but I can say that my 95' Z has been so good to me even though I have put it through so much abuse. Not a problem except for a waterpump replacement.

I have never really understood the whole hard-to-live-with thing. I am 6'3" and to me, living with a Mustang is more of a chore(my friend had one). It is smaller, the driving position is terrible, and I have to watch out with hitting my head on entry more than in the Camaro. Cargo space is much more versatile in the Camaro. The only thing i can see is the long area from the point of vision to the tip of the car but all you have to do is realize that this distance is long and you are fine. This has been discussed many times so I won't go any further but I do absolutely believe that a good amount of people buy Mustangs simply because they are Mustangs.

if someone is just buying a mustang because its a mustang,i'd say that's a good thing.you're buying into a car's reputation of speed,style,image,if it never had any of those things,the mustang name would mean squat.it's no different for a camaro or corvette or BMW.if a person just bought a car for the name or brand,the brand would have to have something special about it to back up that status.you can't be a poseur in a car nobody has any reaction to.

A certain amount of people will buy it just because it is a Mustang. I am not one of them though as I hate the new design.

By guionM Camaro's problem is that it became nothing more than a no compromise performance vehicle that's unfrendly to do-it-yourselfers. That's the image that was cultivated, and that's why you have so many wrong views of Camaro:

Was it ever anything else than a No compromise (or very little) performance vehicle? I believe this to be a selling point, if the Camaro buyers had wanted it to ride like a Caddy, they would've bought a Caddy. The only "unfreindly to DIY'ers" part that I can think of was locating half the motor under the windshield, other than that it's not harder to pick up on than any other newer technology vehicles. Ford on ther other hand have WAY MORE electronics to deal with, as a mechanic, I find them always harder to diagnose and repair.

by Sneaky Neil
I think the better statement is that the Mustang does nothing really well, but a lot of things mediocre.
EXACTLY..:D And there's just a LOT of mediocre people out there...;) 'nuff said.

Camaro's problem IMHO is that it became nothing more than a barroom brawler in performance. While that appeals to our "engine-in-a-box" members here, it doesn't really stand out with anyone else. There's a pretty surprizing number of people here on this board that simply doesn't get it.

It may have started as a "barroom brawler", but it had ended up a "Roy Jones Jr.", light, fast, and agile with a good record!..
I had over 180K miles on my IROC when I decided to refresh it while doing a cam swap anyways. The internals didn't even need turned, a light micro-polish and rehone and that's about IT!...And it's a real BLAST to drive!...It handles EXTREMELY well, accelerates quickly, stops pretty D***quick, feels like an extension of ones self....In a nutshell, It does almost everything well!...

I think its big "problem" was styling, inside and out, PERIOD...Although the '98-ups were slightly better(IMO) especially the TA, it was too little, too late. It's too aero shape, and smaller seats(especially in the lumbar region), useless back seat(Not the Mustang has a real back seat either.)And the lack of GOOD colors, they put to much faith in color surveys, instead of offering more color(s)/combos and let the sales dictate which colors remain.(I have to agree with the "vanilla" idea...it didn't really stand out...)

I could be wrong, but I remember reading in one of the rags awhile back that the v6 Mustang out handles the v6 Camaro. As far as the Mustang being mediocre, that's just an opinion based on the GT Mustang. Remember there's more than one. Mach1 and Cobra are not mediocre. I don't think there's a Camaro to date that can out handle, accelerate or beat the the 2003/4 Cobra in any category including interior. That's one of the things that I like about Ford. Everyday people who don't care about performance can buy one of the so-called "mediocre" Mustangs while true enthusiasts can get a Mach1 or Cobra. Those that don't have the money to buy one of those can get a GT and DIY. You have to admit, it's a winning combination and it works.

DUDE - YOU ARE A GEARHEAD (me too, as are most of us in this forum - so this is not a flame or insult)...
BUT YOU DON'T GET IT!
We all need to be WISE gearheads and think outside our little world - there are more of "them" than there is of "us", and "them" don't want land missiles!!!

YOU are exactly the kind of guy guionM was speking of when he said,"Camaro's problem IMHO is that it became nothing more than a barroom brawler in performance. While that appeals to our "engine-in-a-box" members here, it doesn't really stand out with anyone else. There's a pretty surprizing number of people here on this board that simply doesn't get it."
Look at your last post...

Originally posted by 90rocz
Was it ever anything else than a No compromise (or very little) performance vehicle? I believe this to be a selling point, if the Camaro buyers had wanted it to ride like a Caddy, they would've bought a Caddy.
"Was it ever anything else"... are you kidding me with this?
Do you have any idea how many I6 cars were sold in the first generation?
Do you have a clue how many Iron Dukes were sold in F3's?
Do you have any idea how many V6 F4's are around?
NEWSFLASH : not EVERY Camaro or Firebird is a land missile!
And people don't want a Caddy-ride, they want a sporty, small car with style and efficiency. They want basic, cheap transportation that they look good in - no more, no less.


It may have started as a "barroom brawler", but it had ended up a "Roy Jones Jr.", light, fast, and agile with a good record!..
I had over 180K miles on my IROC when I decided to refresh it while doing a cam swap anyways. The internals didn't even need turned, a light micro-polish and rehone and that's about IT!...And it's a real BLAST to drive!...It handles EXTREMELY well, accelerates quickly, stops pretty D***quick, feels like an extension of ones self....In a nutshell, It does almost everything well!...
Great car, no doubt. That's why we all respect them, because they do those things well.
But you DO REALIZE there are old 2.3L 4-banger Fox Stangs out here with 250k+ miles on them, still running strong, right? I still see considerable numbers of 3rd gens around with the Duke going strong. These folks are not complaining that their cars aren't as fast as an '02 WS6 either. Thet are happy with their rides because of things OTHER than their performance, like daily liveability, low operating costs, etc.
Swapping a cam for fun, deciding to do a rebuild... again friend, you are in gear-head heaven (which is a cool place - I go there often myself :D ), but that IS NOT where most car buyers live. This scenario alone tells me you had something else to drive while you worked on this car, so you yourself must give SOME credibility to a reliable daily driver... which is all most folks want from their Mustang or Camaro (unlike we gearheads).

I think its big "problem" was styling, inside and out, PERIOD...Although the '98-ups were slightly better(IMO) especially the TA, it was too little, too late. It's too aero shape, and smaller seats(especially in the lumbar region), useless back seat(Not the Mustang has a real back seat either.)And the lack of GOOD colors, they put to much faith in color surveys, instead of offering more color(s)/combos and let the sales dictate which colors remain.(I have to agree with the "vanilla" idea...it didn't really stand out...)
Valid points here that I mostly agree with. I'll ad everyone's thoughts about lack of advertising and factory support to the mix, and let it go at that.


So don't you see it?
What guys like guionM and WERM are trying to say really makes a ton of sense. Nobody's bashing the F4 - heck, if anything it simply may have been too good at doing what the designers wanted it to do... it became too dedicated to the persuit of "sleek and fast", and strayed too far from "slow, practical, and useful".

ProudPony, what you all don't seem to get is that, every car CAN'T be everything to ALL people, true?..

So why try to make every car fit everyones wants?

As far as perfomance goes, I still believe a NO-COMPRIMISES stand for cars like the Camaro is a good selling point. That's not to say it can't put some comprimises in its interior ergenomics, or exterior styling etc...

If the car shares a productive platform, who cares if it doesn't out-sell the other. It's sorta like making it an option of the great selling model, right?

There are FAR too many "bleed-over" models out there. About the only thing that sets them apart is cosmetics...Variety is the Spice of Life...remember?
"Was it ever anything else"... are you kidding me with this?Do you have any idea how many I6 cars were sold in the first generation?Do you have a clue how many Iron Dukes were sold in F3's?Do you have a clue how many Iron Dukes were sold in F3's?Do you have any idea how many V6 F4's are around?NEWSFLASH : not EVERY Camaro or Firebird is a land missile!And people don't want a Caddy-ride, they want a sporty, small car with style and efficiency. They want basic, cheap transportation that they look good in - no more, no less.

Answer NOT NEAR AS MANY AS V8's!...Finding a 4cyl 3rd Gen is like finding a "Cross-Fire" one...or hen's teeth..:D And for basic cheap transportation, there are other models on GM's plate for that..

But you DO REALIZE there are old 2.3L 4-banger Fox Stangs out here with 250k+ miles on them, still running strong, right?
I'm glad you didn't mention the T-Bird turbo coupe, that same 2.3L didn't last half that long in them..
I know of many 300K+ "V8" Chevy/GMC pickups running around in my area, there's just a LOT less strain on a larger motor to pull almost the same weight around in the same driving conditions, and you use a LOT less throttle to move it too!..

Nobody's bashing the F4 - heck, if anything it simply may have been too good at doing what the designers wanted it to do... it became too dedicated to the persuit of "sleek and fast", and strayed too far from "slow, practical, and useful".

Too good, there's no such thing..:think: It just forgot to drag along some appealing styling in and out...as appealing to more than just us "Gear Heads" who liked the aero advantage on 150mph+ runs...
If they ponder a more "slow and useful" path for the Camaro, MAY IT REST IN PEACE!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by 90rocz
ProudPony, what you all don't seem to get is that, every car CAN'T be everything to ALL people, true?..

So why try to make every car fit everyones wants?

I'll take this one.

If you haven't noticed, most car companies want to make a profit. Selling 70,000 Camaros AND Firebirds for enthusiasts only wasn't making enough money to justify the vehicle's cost of manufacture, etc...Most enthusiast only performance vehicles are low production, high cost machines. Examples are Mustang Cobra, Lotus Elise, Corvette Z06, Dodge Viper, Ford GT, WRX STi, etc. All these cars are $30,000 plus. Most all are seeing production numbers under 10,000 units a year. Some even lower than 5,000 a year.

Originally posted by 90rocz
As far as perfomance goes, I still believe a NO-COMPRIMISES stand for cars like the Camaro is a good selling point. That's not to say it can't put some comprimises in its interior ergenomics, or exterior styling etc...

If the car shares a productive platform, who cares if it doesn't out-sell the other. It's sorta like making it an option of the great selling model, right?

There are FAR too many "bleed-over" models out there. About the only thing that sets them apart is cosmetics...Variety is the Spice of Life...remember?

Unfortunately as Camaro/Firebird shows, this doesn't work on a large scale. If a vehicle is going to be the "Spice of Life" it has to be unique, beautiful and costly.

Originally posted by 90rocz
Too good, there's no such thing..:think: It just forgot to drag along some appealing styling in and out...as appealing to more than just us "Gear Heads" who liked the aero advantage on 150mph+ runs...
If they ponder a more "slow and useful" path for the Camaro, MAY IT REST IN PEACE!!!!!!!!!!

It may continue to rest in peace if all Camaro owners think this way. ProudPony is right, some people on here just don't get it. Rocket cars are cool, but they don't make profit unless they're unique, beautiful and costly. If GM only built 10,000 Camaros a year at $40,000 with the right looks and 500 hp, it would probably be a profitable car that would stay around for a long time. Problem is, Camaro isn't this type of car. It was never meant to be. Camaro was designed and built to compete with the Mustang. A car designed to appeal to the MASSES! Someone at GM lost sight of the original goal and built an enthusiast's car that couldn't sell to the masses.

I do not envy the job of the 5th Gen designers...Though I'd love to be a fly on the wall!!

It will truly take some talented individuals to pull this one off.

I don't think the 4th gen failed simply because it was a NO-COMPROMSE car. Not at all. It failed partly because it was a COMPROMISE car.

It had a great motor alright (both LT1 and LS1)...but it's compromises came in the form of an old platform, outdated styling, poor build quality, horrible ergonomics and enormous size.

It was compromised from day number one. Sometimes I'm surprised it sold as well as it. It's the compromises that made it unpopular.......NOT THE LACK OF COMPROMISE.

These are the things that have made the Camaro the better overall performance car throughout its history. They sold great until the 4th Gen, and that, says something to me. The Camaro formula worked and worked great....until then. I've said before that I don't want a GTO-like car or a Chevrolet M*stang and I mean it. You don't see F*rd making a F*rd Camaro. They might compete in the same market, but they are cars with 2 different characters and Camaro people want Camaros. Make it higher, less wide, less flashy, (well it can still be flashy) reduce its dimensions too much, compromise it's performance for usefulness and guess what? That's not a Camaro anymore. I have to say, the more I hear about the 5th Gen the more skeptical I become about it being true to the car that we know and want. I just hope the opposite happens. The Camaro has it's own unique image of coolness and that needs to be kept.

Originally posted by Z284ever
I don't think the 4th gen failed simply because it was a NO-COMPROMSE car. Not at all. It failed partly because it was a COMPROMISE car.

It had a great motor alright (both LT1 and LS1)...but it's compromises came in the form of an old platform, outdated styling, poor build quality, horrible ergonomics and enormous size.

It was compromised from day number one. Sometimes I'm surprised it sold as well as it. It's the compromises that made it unpopular.......NOT THE LACK OF COMPROMISE.

I think both sides have points. The engine was a no compromise affair, but the glass rear end was a compromise. I can see both sides on thisone. Unfortunately many people still thought of the car in a redneck way even though the reality was far from that. That perception can really hurt.

Originally posted by IZ28
These are the things that have made the Camaro the better overall performance car throughout its history. They sold great until the 4th Gen, and that, says something to me. The Camaro formula worked and worked great....until then. I've said before that I don't want a GTO-like car or Chevrolet M*stang and I mean it. You don't see F*rd making a F*rd Camaro. They might compete in the same market, but they are cars with 2 different characters and Camaro people want Camaros. Make it higher, less wide, less flashy, (well it can still be flashy) reduce its dimensions too much, compromise it's performance for usefulness and guess what? That's not a Camaro anymore. I have to say, the more I hear about the 5th Gen the more skeptical I become about it being true to the car that we know and want. I just hope the opposite happens. The Camaro has it's own unique image of coolness and that needs to be kept.

No doubt that it will be a total GM effort. It would not be wise to use anything style wise from the new Mustang as ugly as it is. If a new camaro could be made to still offer great performance but be tamer and more liveable on a daily basis and have the advertising and support it deserves, it could very well equal or out sell the Mustang after a few years. I really think that the new Mustang will be hot at first and then fade off considerably.

I don't think the 4th gen failed simply because it was a NO-COMPROMSE car. Not at all. It failed partly because it was a COMPROMISE car.[QUOTE]It had a great motor alright (both LT1 and LS1)...but it's compromises came in the form of an old platform, outdated styling, poor build quality, horrible ergonomics and enormous size It was compromised from day number one. Sometimes I'm surprised it sold as well as it. It's the compromises that made it unpopular.......NOT THE LACK OF COMPROMISE.
Ditto:
:bow: :bow: :bow:

Originally posted by Z284ever
I don't think the 4th gen failed simply because it was a NO-COMPROMSE car. Not at all. It failed partly because it was a COMPROMISE car.

It had a great motor alright (both LT1 and LS1)...but it's compromises came in the form of an old platform, outdated styling, poor build quality, horrible ergonomics and enormous size.

It was compromised from day number one. Sometimes I'm surprised it sold as well as it. It's the compromises that made it unpopular.......NOT THE LACK OF COMPROMISE.

HEY YOU... Don't turn my half-empty glass upside down like that!:p

Symantics.
I honestly think we are making the same point using different words here.

You say "ergonomics were compromised for performance"...
I say "Performance came first - no compromise for ergonomics"...
SAME BASIC MEANINGS - DIFFERENT WORDS.

And FWIW, I could care less about how old the platform is/was - the car was still kick-a$$-fast, handled exceptionally, and was cheap (in Z28 trim anyways). Mustang still sells like crazy on a foundation that is (basically) 24 y/o. So that one doesn't fly as a "compromise" for me at all.

Originally posted by 90rocz
ProudPony, what you all don't seem to get is that, every car CAN'T be everything to ALL people, true?..
TRUE - a Mustang can't double-duty as an F-250 SD or a Lincoln Town Car.
BUT, you have to admit that the closer it comes to "being everything to ALL people", the more people are going to like - and eventually BUY - the car. And when sales volume is important (when is it not?), more buyers is a good thing.

So why try to make every car fit everyones wants?
See blue statement above. Volume = $.

As far as perfomance goes, I still believe a NO-COMPRIMISES stand for cars like the Camaro is a good selling point. That's not to say it can't put some comprimises in its interior ergenomics, or exterior styling etc...
Only if you are trying to sell 20k units / year. I reiterate... not EVERYBODY wants a rocket. SOME (in fact MOST) PEOPLE simply want a fast-looking car, and don't want to spend for the big V8, 6-speed, fancy suspension, or added insurance costs. Remember, slow (as in 0-60 over 6 sec) does not have to mean "4-door family car", or "ugly".

There are FAR too many "bleed-over" models out there. About the only thing that sets them apart is cosmetics...Variety is the Spice of Life...remember?
Not sure what you mean by bleed-over? But I sure know what you mean by VARIETY... as in a V6 and 3 - V8's, as in 4 or 5 sub-variants of the same car, as in 3 tranny choices, as in a rainbow of colors to choose from, as in leather, vinyl, cloth, or suede inserted seating, as in 5 wheel styles, as in 3 body styles (2 since 1994), as in $17k to $55k sticker prices...
yeah, I have to agree with you... VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE, and a pretty darn good seller of vehicles too if people can find or order the exact car they want! ;)

Now if you are saying Variety as in "I wanna go fast, do I pick a Camaro or a Vette... that is VERY limited variety IMO.

I'm glad you didn't mention the T-Bird turbo coupe, that same 2.3L didn't last half that long in them..
I know of many 300K+ "V8" Chevy/GMC pickups running around in my area, there's just a LOT less strain on a larger motor to pull almost the same weight around in the same driving conditions, and you use a LOT less throttle to move it too!..
Back to the specs, power usage, stress and strain on engine components type of verbage...
Do I sense Mr. Gearhead coming out again? :D
I love to talk this stuff too - I can wear out a keyboard on topics like this with you... point is Joe Blow DOESN'T CARE - we do, but he doesn't. Yet he/she spends as much or more on basic cars than we gearheads ever will, so they deserve to get recognized. Man, they are "funding" development of my TOYS! I want to keep them happy... don't you see that?


Too good, there's no such thing..:think: It just forgot to drag along some appealing styling in and out...as appealing to more than just us "Gear Heads" who liked the aero advantage on 150mph+ runs...
If they ponder a more "slow and useful" path for the Camaro, MAY IT REST IN PEACE!!!!!!!!!!
If you insist that Camaro be an all-out performance car or nothing, you may well get your wish... RIP.
There are numerous problems with that kind of take-it-or-leave-it approach...
1) Chevy already has a "pure-performance" car - the Vette.
2) Why would Chevy invest the $ to develop a whole, separate, low-volume car to cater to performance nuts in the $40k range, when the Vette is here now?
3) Why would GM fund a project that would (if successful) compete against the Vette for sales in the very same showroom, especially without the added benefit of profit from huge volume sales of cheap-to-produce base (read V6 or base V8) cars?
4) If you bring all of the GM fold in to play, the picture gets even WORSE imo, because now you have to take into account the new great-performing Pontaics like Grand Am, Grand Prix, and of course GTO. Not to mention the Cadillac line up, Saabs, and others.

I guess my point is, a new Camaro almost HAS to compete for ponycar market share, not high-performance market share. While Camaro was around, GM developed other cars to fill the performance market, the economy market, the family market, the grocery-getter market, etc. - you know these other models, Corvette, Impala, Monte Carlo, Malibu, etc. Camaro was there to fill the ponycar market demographics - and that is where the current void in Chevy's line-up exists. Successful ponycars have base units, mid-levels, and high-performers, but they always bring value and low-cost into play. If you don't cover all these bases, you are encroatching into other markets somehow, and you will fail as a ponycar competitor - plain and simple.
So, IMO, either bring back Camaro as a "Camaro", to compete in the entire ponycar fray, or let it RIP.

Originally posted by ProudPony
HEY YOU... Don't turn my half-empty glass upside down like that!:p

Symantics.
I honestly think we are making the same point using different words here.

You say "ergonomics were compromised for performance"...
I say "Performance came first - no compromise for ergonomics"...
SAME BASIC MEANINGS - DIFFERENT WORDS.



But you see Proud......THE PERFORMANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPROMISES.........let me repeat.....THE PERFORMANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPROMISES!!!!!

This argument never made sense to me. What do poor ergonomics, outdated styling, poor build quality, excessive exterior dimensions have to do with better performance?

Nothing....that's what.

It was just a way to bundle up all of these negatives into one "excuse " ....and say "we compromised for the sake of performance"........................BULLSH!T!!!!!!!!

None of those things had anything to do with performance or a better performance image.

But you see Proud......THE PERFORMANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPROMISES.........let me repeat.....THE PERFORMANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPROMISES!!!!!

This argument never made sense to me. What do poor ergonomics, outdated styling, poor build quality, excessive exterior dimensions have to do with better performance?

Nothing....that's what.

It was just a way to bundle up all of these negatives into one "excuse " ....and say "we compromised for the sake of performance"........................BULLSH!T!!!!!!!!

Non of those things had anything to do with performance or a better performance image.


I agree with you here... styling was not updated enough throught the car's lifespan... build quality, while better than past Camaros, was not up to the rest of the world... exterior dimensions? Well, I like it to be bigger, but the overhangs were excessive... yes...


Only thing is, I think the F4 Camaro (and Firebird) had GREAT ergonomics. Everything was exactly where it should be, and it was very comfortable to drive... especially a manual... which DEFINATELY can not be said for Mustang, unless you like smashing your knuckles into the radio when you shift into 1st, 3rd, and 5th... :think:

A quick note...
THANKS ...

To everyone in this forum for having such a long, yet enjoyable and informative thread!:bow:

I, personally, have enjoyed this thread as much as any other in the last year or so. It has provoked thought from everyone, and we have all done a great job expressing ourselves without flames or obnoxious sarcasm.

:bow: Kudos to all! :bow:

Originally posted by Z284ever
But you see Proud......THE PERFORMANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPROMISES.........let me repeat.....THE PERFORMANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPROMISES!!!!!

This argument never made sense to me. What do poor ergonomics, outdated styling, poor build quality, excessive exterior dimensions have to do with better performance?

Nothing....that's what.

It was just a way to bundle up all of these negatives into one "excuse " ....and say "we compromised for the sake of performance"........................BULLSH!T!!!!!!!!

None of those things had anything to do with performance or a better performance image.

I honestly have to say I agree with the issues in your argument.
At least 98% of it anyways. So long as we agree (mutually) to the actual issues, and not how we describe them.

Here's my exception...
The exterior of the car probably WAS initially designed in the early '90's with aerodynamics as a major player. Wide, sleek, and pointy is more aero than blocky and tall. When your hood rakes a 10 degree angle and is only 20" off the ground at the highest point, it's hard to attach a windshield that's nearly vertical to it... so the windshield lays down too, now it has to be 3-feet long to offer the necessary field of view... etc.

Performance related to styling - ehhh, 50/50 maybe?
Stripes and wheels - definitely NOT. Shape of the body - definitely SO.
That one we have to play carefully, and not "categorize", or we have done just what you said was "BULLSH1+" - we are grouping excuses.

Now everything else - I'm totally with you.:bow:
Performance is no excuse for rattling dashboards and hatches.
Performance has nothing to do with where parting lines are in molds.
Performance has nothing to do with a 3/8 inch gap at the front of the door, and a 1/8 inch gap at the rear.
Performance has nothing to do with a 10" dead air space in the doors and rear quarters.
Performance has nothing to do with knobs that break off, or LED's that stop working.
Performance has nothing to do with window motors that die - with or without frequent use.
And so on.

You are also correct in that "people" find one inexcusable "reason" for something being insufficient, then try to shovel all the other shortcomings into the same pail. It's not fair or honest to the car to do that either.

But you have GOT to admit one thing here Charlie, GM set out to make the F4 the fastest ponycar... and that they did. On the streets, in Camel GT, IMSA, and so on. It was a bad muther when it debuted. We can hardly argue that performance was severely compromised for any "ergonomic" issue, can we?

It's what has happened SINCE 1994 that I have some probs with. And I think my position is shared - almost exactly with yours - unless I have a bad read on you after 2 years of posting together.

Originally posted by Darth Xed
Only thing is, I think the F4 Camaro (and Firebird) had GREAT ergonomics. Everything was exactly where it should be, and it was very comfortable to drive... especially a manual... which DEFINATELY can not be said for Mustang, unless you like smashing your knuckles into the radio when you shift into 1st, 3rd, and 5th... :think:

Subjective points, but valid.

One has to admit the F4 was harder to get in and out of - especially with a briefcase or bag of groceries you are grabbing from the pass. seat while getting out on the driver's side. It takes a ballfield to swing open the 4' long doors too - not good in tight, tiny parking spaces like at Wally-World these days. These are "ergonomic" issues too.

As for me, I'm 6"-1", 17.5"neck, 38" arms, weight 197, and have a 36" inseam. I fit into my cars just fine - except the '93 vert which has limited seat travel due to the top well. My only gripes are that I have to lean forward out of the seata bit to change radio stations or adjust the volume. Also, the shift into 5th is a stretch, but I don't have to lean forward to get it.
Worse gripe is having to lean over and open the glovebox, then reach the fuel door release every time I fill up.:mad:

On the other side, I quite enjoy the left foot rests in my cars - as I can stretch my legs a bit with C/C on, and keep the blood flowing. My knees are nowhere close to any dash or steering wheel collisions.

I think the stretch and reach thing has been blown out of proportion in the Mustang like the cat hump in the Camaro.:rolleyes:
Sure, I would like to see the shifter canted towards the driver and slightly rearward for better all-around movement. I would also like to see the radio moved rearward in the console... put the climate controls, T/C buttons, and other infrequently used gadgets in the "harder-to-reach-while-reclined" positions. SOme of that has been addressed in the 05, but I don't think it's all good yet. I'll let you know after I've had a chance to drive one for a few days!:D

Just pickin' nits here, that's all!:thumb:

Originally posted by ProudPony


But you have GOT to admit one thing here Charlie, GM set out to make the F4 the fastest ponycar... and that they did. On the streets, in Camel GT, IMSA, and so on. It was a bad muther when it debuted. We can hardly argue that performance was severely compromised for any "ergonomic" issue, can we?



Oh yeah, it was fast for sure. But that performance came from it's powertrains....NOT from it's shortcomings. Compromises came from it's COMPROMISES, not it's performance.

I really get a good laugh when people try to characterize themselves as some sort of modern day Samurai or Jedi Knight or something..... "Yes Grasshopper, I accepted the car's shortcomings....because it was THEY....that gave me the uncompromised performance. You can see my toughness by the choices I am willing to make".

Originally posted by Z284ever
Oh yeah, it was fast for sure. But that performance came from it's powertrains....NOT from it's shortcomings. Compromises came from it's COMPROMISES, not it's performance.

I really get a good laugh when people try to characterize themselves as some sort of modern day Samurai or Jedi Knight or something..... "Yes Grasshopper, I accepted the car's shortcomings....because it was THEY....that gave me the uncompromised performance. You can see my toughness by the choices I am willing to make".

OK, fair enough Sensei! :D

Originally posted by ProudPony
Subjective points, but valid.

One has to admit the F4 was harder to get in and out of - especially with a briefcase or bag of groceries you are grabbing from the pass. seat while getting out on the driver's side. It takes a ballfield to swing open the 4' long doors too - not good in tight, tiny parking spaces like at Wally-World these days. These are "ergonomic" issues too.



I will agree that the F4 was not the easiest of cars to get in and out of... my comments for ergonomaics were more for driving position, and placement of controls, rather than ingress and egress.

I still want to see a low-to-the-ground approach to any F5... hopefully they can improve the entry and exit issues like they did from the C4 to the C5 Corvette.



As for me, I'm 6"-1", 17.5"neck, 38" arms, weight 197, and have a 36" inseam. I fit into my cars just fine - except the '93 vert which has limited seat travel due to the top well. My only gripes are that I have to lean forward out of the seata bit to change radio stations or adjust the volume. Also, the shift into 5th is a stretch, but I don't have to lean forward to get it.
Worse gripe is having to lean over and open the glovebox, then reach the fuel door release every time I fill up.:mad:

On the other side, I quite enjoy the left foot rests in my cars - as I can stretch my legs a bit with C/C on, and keep the blood flowing. My knees are nowhere close to any dash or steering wheel collisions.

I think the stretch and reach thing has been blown out of proportion in the Mustang like the cat hump in the Camaro.:rolleyes:
Sure, I would like to see the shifter canted towards the driver and slightly rearward for better all-around movement. I would also like to see the radio moved rearward in the console... put the climate controls, T/C buttons, and other infrequently used gadgets in the "harder-to-reach-while-reclined" positions. SOme of that has been addressed in the 05, but I don't think it's all good yet. I'll let you know after I've had a chance to drive one for a few days!:D

Just pickin' nits here, that's all!:thumb:

Fair enough... I am similar in size to you... 6' 2 1/2", 36" inseam, weight 190... and I honestly was uncomfotable driving a manual Mustang... the auto wasn't really an issue too much.

I had no problem at all in my 99 Z28 M6... it was one of the most comfortable cars to drive...

I spent last weekend in a rent-a-stang while on a trip. I'm not biased against Mustang. Heck, it's the closest thing to a F-body out there now! I just prefer an F-bod. I'm smaller at 5'7" and 160lbs. These are some things that stuck out to me:

-Yuck! They gave me purple....or is it blue?!?

-Trunk opening is TINY!! I could barely get my duffle bag in there. It's a little on the small side too. Gimmee my hatchback back!!

-Shifter is too hard a reach (and I had an auto). In my Camaro my hand comes right to the shifter. IMO that's unforgivable in a performance oriented car.

-Felt like I was sitting on top of the car. Maybe it just takes getting used to, but I felt uncomfortable during faster turns. I definitely prefer the seating position of my Camaro. But, to each his own.

-Visibility is pretty good.

-Hey! I can see the hood! 1st time in years!

-Pretty good rattle coming from the back and it's only got 500 miles on it!

-Nice Stereo System!! :cool: But still it's a little too hard to reach.

My only real complaints are the seating position and the shifter. I still remember the first time I drove a Camaro. Not seeign the hood is a little intimidating, but the seat and "cockpit" fit like a glove. One drive and I was sold. Combine that with the power difference at the time and I made my decision.

Almost all of which is being remedied in the 2005. Ford is listening! I actually prefer sitting higher up though. I'm 6'3", 38" inseem and 196lbs. Getting in and out of the Camaro is a chore for me. The comfort is fine, but I don't like feeling like my butt is two inches from scraping the ground :eek: I don't like leaning so far back either or not seeing the front of the car. The long doors are an issue with me also (not that the doors on my 93 T-Bird were much better).

Longest doors in the industry!

They are a PITA. There have been many times I've been thankful I'm not taller and don't weigh more. I might not have been able to get back in the car!

It's strange though...not like other cars. I always get the feeling I'm strapping it on as opposed to getting in.

Originally posted by ProudPony
A quick note...
THANKS ...

To everyone in this forum for having such a long, yet enjoyable and informative thread!:bow:

I, personally, have enjoyed this thread as much as any other in the last year or so. It has provoked thought from everyone, and we have all done a great job expressing ourselves without flames or obnoxious sarcasm.

:bow: Kudos to all! :bow:

It's nice to have one of these for a change:)

Hey guys, if it is noticeably hard for you 6-footers to see over the hood, imagine how it is to a guy 5'-4", or better yet a girl 5'-0"?!?!

And unless I'm wrong, base seats do not have an up/down height adjustment like power seats in SUV's do...:(

No matter how much someone loves the styling, power, or whatever, they are not likely to buy a car that they can't drive safely or comfortably.

Is there a way to search the demigraphics of the Camaro owners database and see what the average height is?!?!:)

I'd like to see that. I'd also like to see how many Camaro owners would be willing to buy a new Camaro if it was MORE like, but not exactly the same as the new Mustang. Basically like the 67 Camaro was to the 67 Mustang. I have no doubts that GM is looking to build a Camaro, but what kind of Camaro will be able to compete with the Mustang (in sales) is the important question here. What do you think?

As long as we're agreeing that performance doesn't compromise styling and ergonomics. Then we must agree that the reverse is also true. Meaning if the 4th gen fanboys just want a certain level of performance in the 5th gen, the problem is solved.

There are plenty of superior performance "more upright" "conventional 3 box style" cars to the 4th gen. Off the top of my head, '03 Cobra and M3.

The 4th gen is an unappealing car around a world class drivetrain(minus the glass rearend). Horrible ergonomics and bullet nosed thing NON-styling. The comment about "feeling like your butt's gonna scrape the ground" describes it perfectly. The huge doors. The suffocating strapped in feel. The huge overhangs on a short wheelbase.

NOBODY wants that.

REPEAT Nobody wants that.

You guys may like that style. But if the General caters to that, the 5th gen is as dead as the 4th.

The 5th gen will have to be a more compact, upright, 3box design. In other words, it's headed back to the stance of the 1st gen. And it will still out accelerate, out corner, and out brake the 4th gen. That car will be a volume seller success... with or without the camaroz28.com forum members.

Lots of good points made here. But I think people who have owned both (or at least driven both) should be the ones to take seriously.

This is not meant to disrespect F-body fans, but how can anyone say Mustang s*cks or is a POS if they have never done seat time in one? If you were being outsold by a rival by 3 to 1, and you wanted to boost sales, which group would you be intrested in listening to? You already know what your fans want, so you'll start talking to the competitor's buyers.

To those of you who simply want a no compromise car, forget everyone else is living in a fantasy land. General Motors doesn't do charity work when it comes to sales. Neither does Ford or any other maker (though Toyota with the Prius does come close ;)). But being that the coupe market is much smaller than it was even just 3 years ago, each sale is way harder to earn. This means that to be sucessful (GM is a business afterall), outdoing your competition. This means areas beyond just performance (if that's all it took, 4th gen F-bodies would have flown off the shelf).

As far as interior comfort, I'll say that once inside my Z28, it's comfortable and roomy. It's low & wide, and feels huge inside. That's precisely what makes it great for long drives & a pain in the butt to drive in traffic daily. It feels huge and low. Getting in & out is not the easiest affair, and when I had surgery last year, I had to park the car altogether & drive the SC daily. If I had just my Z28, I'd be SOL.

Again, I'm not slaming the f-body. It's very quick, it's roomy inside (the rear seat area is actually more volumous than the back of a Mustang) and I've moved an incredible amout of stuff in the back of my Z. It's a great car for cruising night, or blasting up Highway 1 to Santa Barbera or Monterey (my soon to be new part time home). It's steering is rock solid, and the shifter actually feels hefty.

But for the day to day driving where you actually want a car that isn't 74" wide and sitting on the ground the Z is a little less fun. Getting in & out repeatedly during the day gets annoying where it doesn't even garner a 2nd thought in the Mustang. The thick B pillar and it's blind spot is enough to make you a more careful driver than you thought imaginable. And again, having parts fail or break at mileage that my Mustang seemed to be breaking in really tries the patience.

All in all, I like my Z28. If the next Camaro wipes out all my cars's short comings and keeps all it's strengths (and doesn't have that stupid automatic, non-defeteable headlight switch) I'll be ready to buy one in a heartbeat.

If Ford get's it's customer service house in order, and the new stang is a performance marvel and it's strengths are still there, I'll consider the Mustang. If Chrysler ever gets around to making a performance coupe, assuming it's what I'm looking for at a price & quality I want, I'll give it a look.

But at THIS moment, I gotta say my next car will probally be a GTO (of course this is subject to change over the next year or so ;)).

I honestly think that the Camaro is a great everyday car. Its fun, it feels heavy-duty and reliable. My new M6 Z28 with 213K feels bulletproof while still on the original motor. Getting in and out for me isn't a big deal at all, and I'm 6'3". I don't see why people complain about any of these things? Maybe its just because the Camaro is more suited to someone like me? I don't know. I'll have to go rent a Mustang GT before I make any comparisons.

Originally posted by hp_nut
As long as we're agreeing that performance doesn't compromise styling and ergonomics. Then we must agree that the reverse is also true. Meaning if the 4th gen fanboys just want a certain level of performance in the 5th gen, the problem is solved.

There are plenty of superior performance "more upright" "conventional 3 box style" cars to the 4th gen. Off the top of my head, '03 Cobra and M3.

The 4th gen is an unappealing car around a world class drivetrain(minus the glass rearend). Horrible ergonomics and bullet nosed thing NON-styling. The comment about "feeling like your butt's gonna scrape the ground" describes it perfectly. The huge doors. The suffocating strapped in feel. The huge overhangs on a short wheelbase.

NOBODY wants that.

REPEAT Nobody wants that.

You guys may like that style. But if the General caters to that, the 5th gen is as dead as the 4th.

The 5th gen will have to be a more compact, upright, 3box design. In other words, it's headed back to the stance of the 1st gen. And it will still out accelerate, out corner, and out brake the 4th gen. That car will be a volume seller success... with or without the camaroz28.com forum members.


If it was so bad... (and I know 'times are different now') , but explain how the 3rd gen sold so well if the "butt scraping the ground" is so bad???

Originally posted by Darth Xed
If it was so bad... (and I know 'times are different now') , but explain how the 3rd gen sold so well if the "butt scraping the ground" is so bad???

I think you kind of answered your own question when you said "times are different now" :D. That's one possible reason. The market changes, and peoples priorities change as well.

300,000+ used to be common for cars like the mustang and camaro at one time (64-66 alone saw 1+mill stangs sold), but you'd be lucky to break 100,000+ units in the coupe segment nowadays. The later 4th gen Camaro's where nowhere near that, and the mustang (which is considered a sales success) barely hovered over 150k units a year. Compare that to stang/camaro sales a couple of decades back, and you'll know where i'm going with this. At one point, the pony/muscle car market thrived, now it's almost history.

The low to the ground 3rd gens sales success has no real bearing on todays market or the needs/wants of todays buying public. This doesn't mean that a more upright seating will automatically make the 5th gen a run-away sales success, but you will broaden your consumer base by making the car more livable for the everyday consumer. This is especially important in the base v6 cars.

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
I think you kind of answered your own question when you said "times are different now" :D. That's one possible reason. The market changes, and peoples priorities change as well.

300,000+ used to be common for cars like the mustang and camaro at one time (64-66 alone saw 1+mill stangs sold), but you'd be lucky to break 100,000+ units in the coupe segment nowadays. The later 4th gen Camaro's where nowhere near that, and the mustang (which is considered a sales success) barely hovered over 150k units a year. Compare that to stang/camaro sales a couple of decades back, and you'll know where i'm going with this. At one point, the pony/muscle car market thrived, now it's almost history.

The low to the ground 3rd gens sales success has no real bearing on todays market or the needs/wants of todays buying public.

You beat me to the punch line.

But that about sums it up. Times have changed. There's no room for the sports car anymore in the driveway. It's already clogged up with the mandatory SUV and/or minivan. The remaining spot for the car is reserved for an everyday useful vehicle. If it happens to be high performance, so be it. But number 1, it's gotta be useful. For those of you with detached 3 car garages, that's why the Vette exists.

And there's a measurable economic reason for the drop in coupes and sports cars. Cars cost more today. A lot more. Back in 1985 a Camaro Z/28 was what? $10-12K? That was about 1/3 the average annual salary of the time. It was easy enough to own one plus buy a Corolla for a daily driver. Today a Camaro that's $30K will be well over half the average salary. It's too big a financial commitment to settle for anything less than the total package. There's not enough money or room in the driveway for a 1 dimensional car.

by guionM
To those of you who simply want a no compromise car, forget everyone else is living in a fantasy land. General Motors doesn't do charity work when it comes to sales. Neither does Ford or any other maker (though Toyota with the Prius does come close ). But being that the coupe market is much smaller than it was even just 3 years ago, each sale is way harder to earn. This means that to be sucessful (GM is a business afterall), outdoing your competition. This means areas beyond just performance (if that's all it took, 4th gen F-bodies would have flown off the shelf).

Sorta what I've been trying to say, that the 4th Gen had the Performance thing, hands down. Its only lack was curb appeal to the masses. But I don't believe it needed to "compromise its performance one bit" to achieve that. Compromises like straight flat body panels, doors etc..cut production costs, which probably helped offset performance costs.
People DO want the "rocket" part of a cars' character, just look at the "Import" turbo/nitrous scene thing going on. Speaks volumes....People have an inherent competitive gene, being faster than the guy next to you at a red light (however petty to some) is enjoyable to most, even the "soccer mom".
They just needed more curb appeal, in and out, although us "Gearheads" appreciated the shape for good reasons. The Mustang had "mass appeal" for nearly 10 years with its style flirtations of Mustangs gone by...and now the very image of its '67-68 Fastback ancestor. I don't think it appealed just b/c it was slower and more practical. But it looked better to most average people. If so then why were they nearly all modded almost immediately???But things like cheap looking "flat-light gray" plastic buttons and interior "GM"parts didn't fair well to Fords "shiney black" more rich colored more expensive looking components. And I'm 6'2'' 230# 36 waist, 34 inseam, and I DON'T like how the 4th Gen seats fit me and my 3rd Gen feels much bigger inside. I hit the car shows and dealerships and get in these cars every year b/c I enjoy checking out / comparing the new models etc.
And, I think the retiring "Baby-Boomers" will buy all of these new Mustangs they can make, getting a piece of their past, remembering the "Good Ole Days"...With the rest of their world changed and moved on, feeling forgotten, they love it when a part of it like this resurected...
And I got to get in a new GTO today, while it does look better in person... it still looks a LOT like a big Cavalier with Grand Prix grills. LOVE the sound!!! and interior with color matched gages!!!Stereo!!! I don't like the "Euro" driverside exit duals, I'd like ours to exit traditionally one behind each tire...But that body needs to evolve next year, needs more personality to match it's BRAWN...(some WOW factor..)

Originally posted by guionM
If Ford get's it's customer service house in order, and the new stang is a performance marvel and it's strengths are still there, I'll consider the Mustang.

I know that Ford service can stink and it's hard to find a good dealer at times. However, if you purchase a SVT (even a Focus) your service will be EXCELLENT. As an SVT owner you're treated really well. They even pay for your rental if you have to leave your car in overnight. Just something to consider. It won't be too long before the SVT Cobra is out. Although, if you can't wait the GTO is a very nice car as well.

Yes, times have changed, but some of you guys are just looking too hard to find reaons why the 4th Gen died.

Being low slung is waaaaay down the list if even on it.

1) If the F-Body had the build quality of the current Monte Carlo, it would be a 2 decade leap in quality for the F-Body. Let's face it... the car had issues with quality.

2) A car in this segment HAS to change it's looks, at least in a minor way, more than ONCE in TEN YEARS.

3) Advertising... been down that road a million times.

4) Most Dealer stock was rotten... been there a million times.

5) Most Dealer product knowledge was rotten...

6) GM wanted the car to die off... that certainly doesn;t help things either.


Again, I stand by my statement, that if the 4th Gen car had excellent build quality, proper advertsing, incentives to match the comepetition, more frequent styling updates, and better dealer stock and product knowledge on hand.... it would have sold just fine.

The basic Camaro formula is just fine the way it is... just build it engineer and build it better, and support the product properly.

Originally posted by PaperTarget
I know that Ford service can stink and it's hard to find a good dealer at times. However, if you purchase a SVT (even a Focus) your service will be EXCELLENT. As an SVT owner you're treated really well. They even pay for your rental if you have to leave your car in overnight. Just something to consider. It won't be too long before the SVT Cobra is out. Although, if you can't wait the GTO is a very nice car as well.

I have been pleasantly surprised by the dealer service on my SVT Contour. When it was under warrany, I'd always get a loaner without even asking. But even after my warranty expired...the dealer would always work with me on repairs for "goodwill" (that is..things that shouldn't break...like fractured springs), and always supplied me with a rental.

Yes, this is the same type of service I have seen as an SVT owner also.

Originally posted by Z284ever
I have been pleasantly surprised by the dealer service on my SVT Contour. When it was under warrany, I'd always get a loaner without even asking. But even after my warranty expired...the dealer would always work with me on repairs for "goodwill" (that is..things that shouldn't break...like fractured springs), and always supplied me with a rental.

I live in a town with about 1200 peeps in it. The local Ford place employs maybe 15 peeps max? I think know them all, definitely the owner. I'm guessing they have maybe 30 cars on the whole lot. They've been here since the 60's though.

I know the parts and service folks intimately. I provide them parts for older cars when they can't get them through Ford. I get my Ford parts at... let's say they are the best prices available.;)
I go in and tell them what my diagnostic codes are and what I need them to do. They do it. They call if there's something unusuall or pricey. I usually get same-day service, even when it's not a scheduled appointment. I just can't fuss.

There's another small dealer in the little city where I work. Same deal. I don't know everybody yet, but I know the guys in the parts and shop areas, and they help me out when needed.

I know some buddys that have similar deals with the GMC, Chevy, and Pontiac dealers too. No matter the franchise, it's the people that make the difference. I think that's the secret to it all myself.

It's been my experience that you are a number at the big dealerships, and a person at the small ones. I've been to crappy Ford dealers, and told them they were crappy too.

Living in a small town DOES have it's benefits!

my buddie's 98 c5 has adaptive handling and he hates it, it tries to do too much.