From autoweek.com

Suspension is MacPherson struts in front and a live axle with coil springs in the rear. Surely there will be many of you decrying Ford’s use of a live rear axle in the 21st century. Consider, though, that Mustang engineers went this route because they claim they can tune the suspension to be better than some independent setups, as well as because an axle gives the Mustang better drag-strip-launch characteristics than does an independent setup. (You must love that last qualifier of pony-car character.) It also helps that a live axle is cheaper, keeping the car’s MSRP down. “We saved $300 a car, and that’s just materials,” Thai-Tang said. “That doesn’t include design, engineering and development, prototyping and tooling.

 

TREE HUNDRED BUCKS! That's it?!

Those cheapskates. People blow more than that on those bu!! **** dealer paint sealant and pinstripe packages.

 

So, wait a second.....A version of this car will use IRS, right?

That means the difference for tooling, design, and prototyping is, what?? Nil if not negative?

So, it comes down to $300....

I don't know, if an IRS makes a large enough difference in everyday handling, then I'd gladly put it up if I was buying a new car.

 

Yes the Cobra, an possibly other versions will have IRS, so they had to engineer both.

For $300 I'll take my 5th Gen with IRS

 

Ditto.


And it might not even be that much if they don't have to engineer the solid axle in... so it actually swings back in the favor of IRS only if you look at it that way! Save the costs of developing the solid axle!

 

It should be noted that $300 was referenced to materials only.

How much "design, engineering, and development, prototyping, and tooling" would cost was not discussed.

In short - raw parts are cheap.

 

Good point. Belay my last.

Still, coming from the drag racing persuasion, I'll take the live axle anyways.

 

So they really, in effect, developed and engineered TWO back ends of the same car...IRS and solid axle. Doesn't make much sense unless you're REALLY trying to keep the drag folks around

From a autocross and salted roads percpective, gimme IRS.

How much would they have saved going IRS all around?

 

Also keep in mind that a $300 raw-material cost can quickly turn into $2000 on the sticker once everyone gets their piece of the pie.

That being said, I sure would like to know how much they spend tearing-up the DEW structure to get their precious live axle. Betcha it ends up a classic case of penny-wise-and-pound-foolish, and that the car would have been cheaper if they just stuck with the DEW's setup (appropriately modified for "added value" with cheaper materials and manufacturing processes, of course).

As I spend more time at autocross events than at the dragstrip, and a heck of a lot more time on real roads than playing around on a track of any sort, I know what I'd want on my car.

 

I bought my car for straight line... Ill take the live axle and save the $300.

 

As Eric stated above, $300 in extra material costs doesn't translate into $300 higher price.

If there is no competition in the segment, Ford can charge the customer an extra $whatever the market bears for the "privalege" of owning a Mustang with a proper rear suspension.

If the 5th Gen come with IRS standard, then I would guess the price differential would be $600-1000.

 

True or not, I'd be more than a little miffed by this comment if I were a Mustang owner....

From Car & Driver

Full Story

 

If optional then yes, but if it is included in all cars than it would be cheaper.

Lets say a Camaro with an MSPR of $25,000 cost GM $15,000 to build. That is 66% profit on that car.

The same car with $300 added for IRS goes to $15,300 x 66% markup = $25,500. Consumer pays $500 for IRS

(these are fictional #'s, I don't know the exact profit margin)

 

Car makers fret over pennies of peice cost, so $300 is a pretty big chunk.

 

Few things I think alot of you are missing here. That $300 per car savings is only on the models that use the live axle set up, and when you look at it it makes perfect sense.

First off, Ford DID design & engineer a IRS for the Mustang. I think a few here misread that. What savings is refered to is for the materials since there is no savings on development & engineering (which was actually done).

Typical Mustang, owners DON'T care about the type of rear suspension, as long as it's rear wheel drive! The current Mustang is prehistoric by the standards of pretty much every sports coupe or hatch on the road... yet Mustang absolutlely hammers them with sales margins that makes the F-body's trouncing at the hands of Mustang look like a highly competitive race between the 2.

2nd, there is an unusually high percentage of Mustang GT drivers who modify and or race their cars. Either they are indifferent or they prefer the live axle.

3rd, Ford's going to sell every single DEW-based Mustang they can make for at least the 1st year or 2 (till Chevy and Dodge get their cars out). If they can get out just 300,000 Mustangs with the live axle before they install their already engineered IRS to compete with the competition, Ford has just made itself $90 million!!!


It's exactly the type of move I would have done if I was in the position to make that decision.

A large number of Mustang buyers are indifferent to IRS except the hard core and the track drivers, who will have the Cobra (it WILL have IRS) and perhaps another special edition Mustang that, say, has IRS, the GT's engine, and priced under the Cobra . There's no competition at the moment worth a damn, and the new Mustang is a guaranteed hit either way, and the company needs some spare cash. It's really a no brainer.

Don't take for granted that Ford skipped engineering IRS for the new Mustang, or that Ford won't make IRS standard across the board once Chevrolet or Dodge get their RWD coupes on the road.

As long as Ford spent alot less than $90,000,000 converting the DEW to accept a live axle (and it's safe to say they spent far and away less than a fraction of that) they'll make money on the deal, and still have IRS on certain versions 1st, then across the board later.

It's a very smart and very prudent move that's going to make Ford a ton of money that it didn't have to spend...... just yet, anyhow.

(Note: The high tech crowd get's more excited over Mustang's "high tech" OHC engines than the suspension)