Live rear axle....will it be an advantage for Mustang?
08-28-2003, 03:43 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,504
Originally posted by R377
Be careful with generalities. Like many things automotive, god is in the details. Most people agree the Trailblazer rides better than the Explorer, despite the Trailblazer being solid axle and the Explorer IRS. GM just sweated the details better.
IRS is definitely more expensive than live axle, and it generally weighs more too. Despite that, I agree it's time the f-body stepped out of the stone age and gave its pony car a decent suspension out back.
Be careful with generalities. Like many things automotive, god is in the details. Most people agree the Trailblazer rides better than the Explorer, despite the Trailblazer being solid axle and the Explorer IRS. GM just sweated the details better.
IRS is definitely more expensive than live axle, and it generally weighs more too. Despite that, I agree it's time the f-body stepped out of the stone age and gave its pony car a decent suspension out back.
08-28-2003, 04:02 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 71
Well, I read a Car and Driver article earlier, and it was a comparison of (sport) cars that were 35k and under. In it, was a Mach 1 Mustang. While the editors of Car and Driver bitched that it had a live rear axle, it finished 2nd to the Honda S2000 and Audi TT.
It also had the third slowest lap time.
A live rear axle could work, but only for it's base cars would it seem ideal. An enthusiast model GT, Mach1, or Cobra should all be IRS. I think a base model with live rear axle should be able to pay for IRS extra cost.
It also had the third slowest lap time.
A live rear axle could work, but only for it's base cars would it seem ideal. An enthusiast model GT, Mach1, or Cobra should all be IRS. I think a base model with live rear axle should be able to pay for IRS extra cost.
08-28-2003, 04:03 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Lilburn, GA, USA
Posts: 2,072
Yeah, I have heard the Mustang people bitch about the IRS and how it is inferior for launches but at the same time, i never hear any problems with people with Corvettes. From what I hear, they can hook up pretty damn good stock and the strength of the rear is excellent. On the Lingenfelter 427 TT, they leave everything stock, and they have no problems.......................
Last edited by SNEAKY NEIL; 08-28-2003 at 06:15 PM.
08-28-2003, 04:09 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,531
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Yeah, I have heard the Mustang people bitch about the IRS and how it is inferior for launches but at the same time, i never hear any problems with people with Corvettes. From what I hear, they can hook up pretty damn good stock and the strength of the rear is excellent. On the Lingenfelter 427 TT, they leave everything stock, and they have no problems.......................
Yeah, I have heard the Mustang people bitch about the IRS and how it is inferior for launches but at the same time, i never hear any problems with people with Corvettes. From what I hear, they can hook up pretty damn good stock and the strength of the rear is excellent. On the Lingenfelter 427 TT, they leave everything stock, and they have no problems.......................
Seems like the new stang will continue to suffer from the additional space the live axel will take up. Which means I guess they'll have to re-work the platform to accept clearence the it requires. Curious how they'll get it to work so the driving characteristics feel right.
08-28-2003, 05:58 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,873
I still remain confused as to how exactly an IRS is "too expensive". Consider that a FWD car with an IRS STILL HAS half shafts, universal joints, differential etc. located at the front wheels (IFS). So what is it? The extra steel for the drive shaft and the hump in the floor? I can't imagine that would cost too much.
I think this is another case of the domestics trying to save a buck and in the process making a car that will be less appealing and thus sell in lower quantities and make less money. Why must the Big 2.5 always make the lowest common denominator cars? Can't they aim for a home run once in a while???
I think this is another case of the domestics trying to save a buck and in the process making a car that will be less appealing and thus sell in lower quantities and make less money. Why must the Big 2.5 always make the lowest common denominator cars? Can't they aim for a home run once in a while???
08-28-2003, 06:09 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Originally posted by formula79
I don't think an IRS costs all that much...Holden uses them Quite cost effectivly. I think the issue is that the LS had an expensive unit and instead of engineering one one more cost efficiant and less aluminum intensive, etc...thye just slapped an axle on and called it a day.
I don't think an IRS costs all that much...Holden uses them Quite cost effectivly. I think the issue is that the LS had an expensive unit and instead of engineering one one more cost efficiant and less aluminum intensive, etc...thye just slapped an axle on and called it a day.
Actually, Ford put alot of effort into it as they did with the MN12. The big difference was that they actually watched the weight and used alumunum. The LS suspension is actually one of the bright spots of Ford's engineering efforts of late. It's an excellent design like the MN12.
Holden's IRS unit is cheaper (to date) because it's actually the one with a crude design! It's basically a cheap trailing arm design, attached to the floorpan, as opposed to the LS's rear sub-frame which holds the rear suspension, and the whole unit bolts to the chassis. Comparing the LS rear suspension to the V car is like comparing a B2 to a B52, with the Lincoln as the former. The B2 is leading edge high-tech, but that doesn't mean the 50 year old B52 has outlived it's usefulness, by a long shot.
Holden, in typical fashion, crafted a miracle out of thin air. The IRS on their cars do a job you'd think they couldn't do (much like the brief time a production solid axle 4th gen could out do a production IRS C5 on the track) and actually turned into one of the best handling sedans you could buy without being an arms dealer.
Note to some: IRS does not automatically mean "better handling", though it does mean better riding and more passenger or luggage space.
Last edited by guionM; 08-28-2003 at 06:13 PM.
08-28-2003, 06:36 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,712
Originally posted by WERM
I still remain confused as to how exactly an IRS is "too expensive". Consider that a FWD car with an IRS STILL HAS half shafts, universal joints, differential etc. located at the front wheels (IFS). So what is it? The extra steel for the drive shaft and the hump in the floor? I can't imagine that would cost too much.
I still remain confused as to how exactly an IRS is "too expensive". Consider that a FWD car with an IRS STILL HAS half shafts, universal joints, differential etc. located at the front wheels (IFS). So what is it? The extra steel for the drive shaft and the hump in the floor? I can't imagine that would cost too much.
Comparing it to FWD isn't really fair since all cars have IFS already . The marginal cost to add drive hardware to an IFS setup is much less than converting a live rear axle to IRS.
08-28-2003, 08:37 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,873
Originally posted by R377
It's expensive in comparison to a solid rear axle. With a solid axle you can make it as simple as having the pumpkin, two tubes, two half shafts, and two leaf springs. With IRS you still have the pumpkin, but now you add upper and lower control arms on both sides (+ bushings, mounting points, and assembly time), two half shafts, 4 CV joints, and a more complicated wheel hub to hold everything together.
Comparing it to FWD isn't really fair since all cars have IFS already . The marginal cost to add drive hardware to an IFS setup is much less than converting a live rear axle to IRS.
It's expensive in comparison to a solid rear axle. With a solid axle you can make it as simple as having the pumpkin, two tubes, two half shafts, and two leaf springs. With IRS you still have the pumpkin, but now you add upper and lower control arms on both sides (+ bushings, mounting points, and assembly time), two half shafts, 4 CV joints, and a more complicated wheel hub to hold everything together.
Comparing it to FWD isn't really fair since all cars have IFS already . The marginal cost to add drive hardware to an IFS setup is much less than converting a live rear axle to IRS.
A Solid Axle is cheaper, no doubt, but so are 15" wheels, carburators and drum brakes - none of which belong on a performance car made in 2005.
08-28-2003, 09:55 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melb, Aust
Posts: 848
Originally posted by WERM
A Solid Axle is cheaper, no doubt, but so are 15" wheels, carburators and drum brakes - none of which belong on a performance car made in 2005.
A Solid Axle is cheaper, no doubt, but so are 15" wheels, carburators and drum brakes - none of which belong on a performance car made in 2005.
I agree..
If the Mustang is Ford's "Performance Car" then it makes sense to fit it with IRS.
Funny though these same Ford people who bag the LS1/6 pushrod engines as inferior technology....defend their donkey cart live axel setup's..
08-28-2003, 10:03 PM
#25
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Originally posted by guionM
Note to some: IRS does not automatically mean "better handling", though it does mean better riding and more passenger or luggage space.
Note to some: IRS does not automatically mean "better handling", though it does mean better riding and more passenger or luggage space.
08-29-2003, 05:17 AM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Originally posted by guionM
Note to some: IRS does not automatically mean "better handling", though it does mean better riding and more passenger or luggage space.
Note to some: IRS does not automatically mean "better handling", though it does mean better riding and more passenger or luggage space.
08-29-2003, 12:21 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
It's not only stupid, but the "drag racing" excuse is just retarded. Why not come out and just tell us the truth? We aren't stupid, Lol.
Since when did they start caring about drag racers? Where were they back in 96 when the enthusiasts were screaming for a 5.8L pushrod and they stuck us with a smaller, peakier, less tq'er mod motor? That was what the drag racers wanted.
I personally see this as a major disappointment. That alone wouldn’t keep me from buying a 2005 Mustang GT though. The regular buyer may or may not care or notice.
Lincoln Navigator has 4 wheel independent suspension and the escalade doesn't. The Expedition does but the Yukon doesn't. The Explorer does but the Trailblazer doesn't. The Cobra did but the Camaro SS didn't. None of these live axled vehicles had dismissal sales. Some of these GM vehicles are also Luxury models (luxury is supposed to equal comfort). The camaro had bad sales, but the SS sold near as much as the Cobra and both were priced similarly.
Since when did they start caring about drag racers? Where were they back in 96 when the enthusiasts were screaming for a 5.8L pushrod and they stuck us with a smaller, peakier, less tq'er mod motor? That was what the drag racers wanted.
I personally see this as a major disappointment. That alone wouldn’t keep me from buying a 2005 Mustang GT though. The regular buyer may or may not care or notice.
Lincoln Navigator has 4 wheel independent suspension and the escalade doesn't. The Expedition does but the Yukon doesn't. The Explorer does but the Trailblazer doesn't. The Cobra did but the Camaro SS didn't. None of these live axled vehicles had dismissal sales. Some of these GM vehicles are also Luxury models (luxury is supposed to equal comfort). The camaro had bad sales, but the SS sold near as much as the Cobra and both were priced similarly.
08-29-2003, 12:33 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Lincoln Navigator has 4 wheel independent suspension and the escalade doesn't. The Expedition does but the Yukon doesn't. The Explorer does but the Trailblazer doesn't.
Lincoln Navigator has 4 wheel independent suspension and the escalade doesn't. The Expedition does but the Yukon doesn't. The Explorer does but the Trailblazer doesn't.
08-29-2003, 01:09 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
It's not only stupid, but the "drag racing" excuse is just retarded. Why not come out and just tell us the truth? We aren't stupid, Lol.
Since when did they start caring about drag racers? Where were they back in 96 when the enthusiasts were screaming for a 5.8L pushrod and they stuck us with a smaller, peakier, less tq'er mod motor? That was what the drag racers wanted.
It's not only stupid, but the "drag racing" excuse is just retarded. Why not come out and just tell us the truth? We aren't stupid, Lol.
Since when did they start caring about drag racers? Where were they back in 96 when the enthusiasts were screaming for a 5.8L pushrod and they stuck us with a smaller, peakier, less tq'er mod motor? That was what the drag racers wanted.
Of course, when Ford needed to cut some costs, that live axle started looking pretty good for most models of Mustang.
BTW: Long time members of Team Mustang and SVT will share with you the frustrations THEY felt trying to convince the company to let them take on Camaro with more power. The 5.8L V8 was actually pushed by Team Mustang, but was shot down because it would be a step backwards going back to OHV. SVT eventially got to do a version, but only as a the limited edition Cobra R.