guesswhoo

It appears that "some" people here over looked the fact that the 05 has a 5 speed auto. What happens to MPH (in the 1/4) when car X that went from a 3.55 rear gear ratio to 4.30 ...... and it trapped @ 99 mph with the 3.55

PacerX

This might be a good point. If I remember correctly the car wasn't getting into 4th.

Ken S

well here's the thing.. we all know the pro's and cons of live rear axle, but, I rather see a well engineered and executed IRS than a solid live rear axle any day... especially in a street car.


I'm hoping the IRS in the next Mustang will be much better than than a hacked up to make a fit design. Then perhaps I may consider it (although it'll probably push it towards the Vette pricerange, where then I would rather get a Vette)


Personally, I will not consdier another new car with a solid rear axle (even if it was a Camaro). If I wanted one, then I'll just keep my current f-bod, or perhaps go with a classic, mainly for style.


On turbo I4's and the such... A reason why I'm not all about them, is they are so ugly! That and I like the simple and linear feel of a big NA V8.

guesswhoo

Then I guess this when they (M/T) suggested that the low mph in the quarter might be due to big jump in ratios from 3rd to 4th (AUTO). It apparently really dropped out of the powerband. Thanks for the gear ratio chart!

slt

First, I'm by no means bragging about high 12's. I'm just saying that all this arguing over 1/4 mile times is overlooking other aspects of the car.

Well, in the article this thread is in reference to, they say the opposite when compared to the 350z and RX-8. They even drew a little box with pictures further explaining why the solid rear axle, while improved over the last model, is not quite getting it done. They also wrote about the brakes that had heavy fade after just two laps.
Thats great, b/c 99% of the miles on my car are NOT on the track.
Methinks you will see lots of comparisons once this car is out, and I bet all of them will rate the mustangs handling and braking dynamics near the bottom of this segment.
Here we go again with the 1/4 mile tunnel vision. Consumers these days are after more than strait away speed, that was my original point. Why are they selling so many 14 second rx-8's?
Your "pony cars" actually got spanked in the cannonball one lap of america sponsored by car and driver. I'm also looking foward to the upcoming car and driver super tuner challenge where a $40,000 evo beat on a lot of high dollar v8's.

My only problem with a V8 is the amount of weight that comes with it, especially in a front engine setup.

My whole point to this is that the mustang, from this article, doesn't seem like a great all around car. It appears to still be targeted at 1/4 mile racing which isn't what a lot of people look for in a sports car.

Bob Cosby

slt....you are biased. So am I.

Nobody really expects you to like the Mustang - given your choice of cars. I will state right now that I don't like the EVO or any other 4 cylinder econobox. The 350Z and RX8 are neat cars, but not my cup of tea either.

I have no idea how well the RX8 and/or 350Z are selling. If they are selling well, cool. I do know how the Mustang is selling, and how the 05 Mustang will likely sell, and I suspect that number is way, way more than both the cars you mentioned - combined. Perhaps there is something to why many of us don't have a problem with live axles and absolutely love V8s?

It is likely you can find plenty of opinion to back up your perspective. It is likely that I can find plenty to back up mine too.

Folks should keep these facts in perspective when reading your (and my) posts.

94LightningGal

I'm glad to hear that the Z's brakes are good, as one problem you didn't mention about them is the tire problem. It would seem that they are wearing tires out in record speed.......... due to odd wear problems. Its not something that an alignment can fix, as it seems to be an engineering problem with the car.

As for the handling of the Mustang GT. According to the MT article, it pulled a slalom speed of 66mph. This says that the suspension is doing its job. As a way of comparison, MT got a 63.5mph from the '04 GTO, and a 66.2mph from the C6 Z51 Vette.

You have to understand that there is a general bias against solid axle cars in the automotive media. As someone so correctly pointed out, a solid axle car can handle as well or better than IRS........... just as long as the surface is smooth. The tradeoff being that for an equal amount of grip, the solid axle car will normally ride rougher.

One of the things that I find funny is the talk about the front still being a strut type suspention (even though it is now coil-over). What makes it funny is that the automotive media's handling pinnacle is usually the BMW 3-series............... which runs the exact same type of front strut suspension.

Bias maybe............. Nahhhhh............ a magazine wouldn't do that, would they???

BTW, while I respect the power and handling of the current crop of rally race bred pocket rockets.............. can't they please make them look better??? The EVO looks like a riced out Lancer, and the WRX STI............well........... what the hell is up with that hideous scoop??? It looks like something my first boyfriend made out of cardboard in his garage.