I thought everybody already knew that Robert Lane's sole purpose for BON is to simply discredit and throw mud on Ford under the guise of a website for Ford enthusiasts.

I wouldn't bet a dime on much of anything I read on there. In fact, I remember reading all his "facts" about upcoming models several years ago. The "facts" were so off-base it was actually ridiculous, and a large reason why I stopped even going to that site.
S.

 

But the article was written by Paul Leinert, who is a very respected auto journalist who used to write for the Detroit newspapers. As we've learned here with the Camaro, suppliers are the key. If he has talked to suppliers that say very little work has been done on the next SVT models, it might mean something. Who knows for sure though....

 

The point is, it doesn't matter who wrote the article.
If Bob Lane can find something to stir Ford's pot, he'll put it on his website. Whether it's less than accurate renditions of NHTSA reports, articles that question Ford's integrity, solvency, progress, etc., or "leaked" information from "confidential" sources.
S.

 

Lane didn't post the story, someone else in the forums did. And more than a few have been discounting it.

For the record, I'm a newspaper reporter, and I thought that story was shaky because he wasn't able to get any actual quotes (even anonymous ones)...it kinda reads like hearsay, and I don't really think SVT is in any more trouble than the rest of the company as a whole, but I do think there's some truths there...The part that really sticks out to me is the speculation that Ford is de-engineering the platform to the point of negating it's inherent good points.

I still think the next stang will be a wonderful car and sell like crazy, but IMO, they've lowered the bar in creating a good car out of what could've possibly been a world-class car, trouncing everything in it's class, even in europe. But a lot of things can change between now and 2005. Even though I'm a chevy fan, I'm pulling for the stang to be the best it can possibly be, so GM has to do that much more to surpass it...

And a teen going 162 MPH??? It's not my place to lecture, but i just want to say you must have trouble walking with ***** that huge!

 

Robert didnt type what I copied.And just for your info ALOT of insiders of Ford go to BON with S197 info.and other Ford products.Employee's of Ford ALSO post there.Hell,Robert HARDLY ever posts anyway.Just think of it this way,As many insiders that this forums has, BON has about equal.If not more,Ive been @ BON for a long time and know who to trust,Just like it took me all of about a week and a half to know who's words to trust on this site.The auto industry is like Michigan weather,Wait a second and it WILL change.

As for the S197 changing over to struts in front and a delayed IRS.
IMHO this is nothing but good.If they are paying attention to weight as reported this should be one light lil heffer.
Strut type suspension has proven it's self over the years,And from my perspective using upper/lower control arm set up will just add unwanted weight.IRS is heavy as well.And in the long run the suspension will be more durable then the DEW chassis and easier to fix for the backyard mechanic.IM GETTING TIRED of cars getting so damned complicated,3 cheers to Ford for making this one easier for the masses.

 

I'm a notorious IRS detractor, but the idea of substituting struts up front gets me going. The MacPhaerson Strut is wonderful in terms of manufacturing efficient, but stinks in terms of maintainability. Replacing strut inserts is way more difficult for a "backyard mechanic" than replacing mere shocks. Moreover, a strut wil never be superior to a double wishbone suspension in terms of durability, or ride comfort. Inferiority in handling is inherent, but not as noticible if the tuning is decent. The biggest problem is that a strut demands a higher hood/cowl height that an equivilent wishbone setup for the same length of wheel. travel. I'd say that the Mustang needed a lower cowl more than any other styling or design feature. The 2005 concept says otherwise.

I remember when an IRS did have serious maintainence concequences as a car aged. The old BMW 2002 was notorious for its rear suspension bushings. However, I don't think its much of a problem anymore. Heck, modern geometry has even cured the old complain of excession negative camber in a heavily loaded IRS car.

I would rather have seen an intact DEW98 chassis. At very least it would have given the Mustang "Jaguar" bragging rights. As it is, the traditional chassis design gives the impression of a carry-over.