You know of what you speak.

I would like to have us all remember that we are living on earth, and we are amid rising gas prices, high insurance premiums, and a recession to boot. A butter-soft ride is probably not the top priority in everyone's mind right now - economics IS.

Here's the plan, Stan...

First - The Mustang needs desperately to come out wide open and flawlessly. More changes means more likelihood of problems - regardless of 2 years of testing. Ford MUST play it on the safe side IMO, and this definitely falls in those lines.

Second - Truth be known, most buyers won't care if it's live (or if it's memorex ).
They will buy for styling, heritage, and popularity for the first year or two - history says so. That will give Ford time to incorporate the Blade IRS system into other models to share the cost burden, then I think we will see it hit the new Mustang as well as other models. In fact, I'm sure of it.

Third - We all know how hot SUVs are selling right now, so why not appease the family haulers with the better ride first? 450,000 Explorers per year versus 200,000 Mustangs... why not do it first? (and they have - just recently) After Ford gets all of it's bread and butter SUVs and trucks where they want it, they will then execute the cars.

Lastly, the IRS IS ALREADY THERE... it's just in the Cobra. It costs more, sure. But isn't that where you'd expect to see the improved handling and cornering ability - in a $35,000 400hp road racer? If you think your V6 grocery-getter needs the IRS, go to Mustang Parts Specialties and buy a used unit and throw it in.

I see it like this... keep immediate costs down, wait a year or two for the economy to allow you to increase price without a big to-do, go with a sure-fire proven unit to reduce risk of problems, have something to "advertise" as an improvement to the car once the hype starts to fade (after 410,000 units are sold - hehe! ), and also incorporate the new rear end with your upcoming new powertrains all at the same time (and YES, there are new engines in the plan for 06 and beyond).

So with all this new paint on the walls, why shouldn't Ford stick with the live axle unit?

To answer the thread topic - NO, the live axle will not hurt the sales of the car IMO. How many people REALLY will walk away from a deal on a car that is colored, optioned, styled, and made just for them because of that one issue? Besides, I really don't want to see the Mustang get too many options and get too fat on all the technological advancements just because they are here now. I will always think of the Mustang as good, practical, economical transportation that can also look sporty and kick a little tail once in a while. I'm against shifting the whole model line up in price to find luxuries (in ride, interior, or anything else) - if you want that, buy something else. The base Mustang never was, nor should it ever be, an upscale car.

 

I don't know how good the Ford Fox-body 4-link performs, but GM was pretty damn successful at getting decent performance out of their 4-link systems (like the ones under the B-body). With stiff trailing arms and high-quality bushings, they work very well. And why go to a Panhard bar instead of a Watts linkage? I'm betting this is some smoke-and-mirrors stuff in an attempt to hide the fact they used some warmed-over 50-plus-year-old design and tweaked the shape of a few links to meet their packaging demands.

There's something seriously wrong with the world when a manufacturer sticks a solid axle under their performance car while giving their body-on-frame 4WD SUVs a sophisticated IRS

 

Agreed. Good point too BTW.

I disagree. Actually GM is practicing exactly the same mentality right now. Look at the funds and development going into GM suv's right now - BECAUSE THAT"S WHERE THEY ARE FINDING THE MONEY.

I could likewise ask a GM guy "Why is it that GM puts SS on Impy and Monte's and every other car it has, but makes a Trailblazer SS that smokes 'em all? Much less a 135 MPH Tahoe persuit package!?!?

Read your statement again Eric, you said...
"There's something seriously wrong with the world when a manufacturer sticks a solid axle under their performance car while giving their body-on-frame 4WD SUVs a sophisticated IRS"
Now think about the Monte, Impy, Malibu, Cavi -- Silverado SS, Tahoe Persuit, TBlazer SS...

There must be something seriously wrong in the world then, because at least Ford has IRS on units where ride SHOULD come before performance, and higher Cgs need all the help they can get to prevent roll-overs.

BTW - the Mustang is not at all like a Corvette or something... it may be Ford's flagship car of sorts, but it is not a total "performance" model. Last I heard, only about 35-40% of Mustangs were getting the V8, and less than 5% are high-end cars like Cobra, Saleens, Machs, etc. That hardly makes the model a performance model IMO - in fact the majority is clearly V6 commuters. The Cobra is "the performer" and it has IRS.