Some thoughts on Mustang....
01-09-2004, 09:59 AM
#16
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Also, if the Camaro has an IRS, then it is something over the comparable Mustang models and then the top level Camaro will have the IRS to compete with the Cobra in the handling department.
Also, if the Camaro has an IRS, then it is something over the comparable Mustang models and then the top level Camaro will have the IRS to compete with the Cobra in the handling department.
Hau Thai-Tang is probably right when he says most people who buy Mustang don't know or care what kind of suspension is back there. I'd say alot of Camaro buyers are the same. Not to sound sexist.....but I've never heard a female Mustang or Camaro buyer ever give any indication that they had any awareness whatsoever which or even that a suspension even existed under their cars.
But if you hammer it home with proper marketing.....
"CAMARO WITH STANDARD INDEPENDENT REAR SUSPENSION.......NOT AVAILABLE ON BASE MUSTANG"
Those same people may not know what it is.....but they'll know that it's something "better" that Camaro has and Mustang doesn't.
BTW, just my personal take on the live rear axle thing------- I think Ford kept it on the Mustang to save afew nickels, and they breathed a sigh of relief when their research indicated that they could say the drag racers made them do it.
I don't think it's the drag racers that wanted the front struts though.
Last edited by Z284ever; 01-09-2004 at 10:02 AM.
01-09-2004, 01:49 PM
#18
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Actually, I don't have much of a problem with Ford penny pinching the Mustang's suspension.
I'm just saying that in the past....Camaro product planners have looked at their cross town rival and figured..."Why push the envelope....Mustang doesn't have it".
I just don't want the Camaro team getting any cheapskate ideas.
I'm just saying that in the past....Camaro product planners have looked at their cross town rival and figured..."Why push the envelope....Mustang doesn't have it".
I just don't want the Camaro team getting any cheapskate ideas.
01-09-2004, 04:58 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 2,356
Camaro would probably be better off with IRS. I'm all for it if the F-car IRS could actually hold power. I tend to think that yes, the Vette's IRS is pretty good, however I cant help but think that the Camaro version would be cheaper and weaker due to the price of the car. Who knows right now anyway? This is still a couple years away. On the other hand I'd prefer a live rear axle due to simplicity and cost but IRS is something I'd live with and welcome if done right. Either way Camaro needs a rear end that is FAR stronger than the sissy 10-bolts we got stuck with.
01-09-2004, 04:59 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: five-one-oh/nine-oh-nine
Posts: 1,440
surprisingly, I don't have as much a problem with the Mustang having a solid axel as I thought I would. as long as they designed and engineered it properly so its a major enough improvement over the current one, it should be fine for most people who buy it. after all, if the Mustangs get too expensive, either Ford won't be able to afford to sell them or the public won't be able to afford to buy them.
I can also understand the move to struts up front. the 4.6L is a bigger engine than the 4.0L V8 and the 3.0L V6 that go into the LS, Type-S and T-bird. SLA eats a pretty big chunk out of the engine bay. struts are, on the other hand, compact by comparison. when asked if you want a bigger engine or SLA, I'd bet for most of you it would be a no-braner. so it was too for Ford.
I do disagree though on the general public not being able to tell the difference in ride quality. they may not realise what it is that makes up the difference, but they DO perceive it. if that weren't true then we WOULD still have solid front axels with leaf springs.
I can also understand the move to struts up front. the 4.6L is a bigger engine than the 4.0L V8 and the 3.0L V6 that go into the LS, Type-S and T-bird. SLA eats a pretty big chunk out of the engine bay. struts are, on the other hand, compact by comparison. when asked if you want a bigger engine or SLA, I'd bet for most of you it would be a no-braner. so it was too for Ford.
I do disagree though on the general public not being able to tell the difference in ride quality. they may not realise what it is that makes up the difference, but they DO perceive it. if that weren't true then we WOULD still have solid front axels with leaf springs.
01-09-2004, 05:10 PM
#21
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Originally posted by morb|d
I can also understand the move to struts up front. the 4.6L is a bigger engine than the 4.0L V8 and the 3.0L V6 that go into the LS, Type-S and T-bird. SLA eats a pretty big chunk out of the engine bay. struts are, on the other hand, compact by comparison. when asked if you want a bigger engine or SLA, I'd bet for most of you it would be a no-braner. so it was too for Ford.
I can also understand the move to struts up front. the 4.6L is a bigger engine than the 4.0L V8 and the 3.0L V6 that go into the LS, Type-S and T-bird. SLA eats a pretty big chunk out of the engine bay. struts are, on the other hand, compact by comparison. when asked if you want a bigger engine or SLA, I'd bet for most of you it would be a no-braner. so it was too for Ford.
Ford replaced DEW's SLA suspension with struts on the Mustang purely for cost.
01-09-2004, 09:29 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Panhandle of West Virginia
Posts: 1,548
Originally posted by Bob Cosby
Ford actually went out and ASKED enthusiasts what they wanted to see in the car. Among other venues I'm sure, they came to NMRA and FFW races. In fact, I was was asked down at a FFW weekend race in Gainseville a few years ago SPECIFICALLY about what I'd like to see for a rear suspension. IRS or live axle...guess which one I picked?
I like the decision. Makes sense for those of us of the non-road race variety (you're welcome to use the redneck label if you like ).
Ford actually went out and ASKED enthusiasts what they wanted to see in the car. Among other venues I'm sure, they came to NMRA and FFW races. In fact, I was was asked down at a FFW weekend race in Gainseville a few years ago SPECIFICALLY about what I'd like to see for a rear suspension. IRS or live axle...guess which one I picked?
I like the decision. Makes sense for those of us of the non-road race variety (you're welcome to use the redneck label if you like
).
01-09-2004, 09:34 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Panhandle of West Virginia
Posts: 1,548
Originally posted by Darth Xed
It is time that solid rear axles in cars went the way of 8-track tape players and vinyl seating.
It can't cost that much more, since every front drive car out there has it (yes, I know it is a bit different, but not that much different)
Again, Corvette seems to do just fine with it at the strip... and Corvette has had IRS since 1963!
It is time that solid rear axles in cars went the way of 8-track tape players and vinyl seating.
It can't cost that much more, since every front drive car out there has it (yes, I know it is a bit different, but not that much different)
Again, Corvette seems to do just fine with it at the strip... and Corvette has had IRS since 1963!
01-09-2004, 09:35 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Panhandle of West Virginia
Posts: 1,548
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I have never heard of a Corvette owner complaining about traction issues or rear end "hop" from thier IRS. Also, i have never heard of any of them complain about a the strength of the rear. In all the high dollar/high horse power aftermarket Corvettes, they never touch the rear and this includes cars like the TT Lingenfelter Vettes. So I think it can be done right without many comprimises.
If the cost and development can be spread throughout a few vehicles, then I wouldn't think the cost would be that much of an issue. Also, if the Camaro has an IRS, then it is something over the comparable Mustang models and then the top level Camaro will have the IRS to compete with the Cobra in the handling department.
I have never heard of a Corvette owner complaining about traction issues or rear end "hop" from thier IRS. Also, i have never heard of any of them complain about a the strength of the rear. In all the high dollar/high horse power aftermarket Corvettes, they never touch the rear and this includes cars like the TT Lingenfelter Vettes. So I think it can be done right without many comprimises.
If the cost and development can be spread throughout a few vehicles, then I wouldn't think the cost would be that much of an issue. Also, if the Camaro has an IRS, then it is something over the comparable Mustang models and then the top level Camaro will have the IRS to compete with the Cobra in the handling department.
The solid rear axle is just fine and there are plenty of parts available for it.
01-09-2004, 11:45 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Assuming the Camaro comes with IRS across the board, can we expect a quality performance IRS like the vettes or a weaker more hop-prone unit like the Cobra? Since this is shared across the whole lineup, this would mean that even the base v6 camaro will have this rear as well.
01-09-2004, 11:53 PM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 218
IRS would help the handling image of the Mustang and any new Camaro that's for sure. Many people that buy these cars may not know what an IRS is, but they sure know how to toss it out as a buzzword like dohc, vtec, abs, X-cylinders, etc...
The Mustang improved by going to a panhard rod setup, in order to improve a new Camaro should be going to IRS.
The Mustang improved by going to a panhard rod setup, in order to improve a new Camaro should be going to IRS.
01-10-2004, 12:14 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
Posts: 2,947
I think Ford is on track with switching to a front strut set up, I think the handling/complication/expense issue is just one "short-comings" of being a "SportsCar" that they were adressing. I don't think it was as much a weight issue as what I said above. When I, personally, buy a "Sports Car" I never expect it to ride like a Buick, that's what I bought the Buick for...a good ride and a little sporty...
For a touring car, IRS is probably going to be better, BUT for simplicity, interchangability, upgrade-ability and performance, sticking with a solid rear axle makes more sense from every perspective. These new models are starting to push the power limits on things like the IRS we're used to seeing. Maybe their just trying to aviod some recalls...
As far as Chevy staying "low tech"...."If it ain't broke, Don't fix it"...This rear has PROVEN to be reliable, inexpensive and capable. I think they should use IRS as an option to "feel out the market". If they get some big orders, then consider a limited model production, like "Standard on RS" only...I wouldn't mind buying a second 5th Gen to "cruise around" on uneven pavement in..(the only real advantage of IRS)
(I've seen the Dana's blow spider gears or chip off some teeth, but not blow an axle. BUT, every Vette I've seen that made "Serious Power" swapped the rear, first thing...)(And I've never seen a Lingenfelter TT Vette with a stock live axle either..)
For a touring car, IRS is probably going to be better, BUT for simplicity, interchangability, upgrade-ability and performance, sticking with a solid rear axle makes more sense from every perspective. These new models are starting to push the power limits on things like the IRS we're used to seeing. Maybe their just trying to aviod some recalls...
As far as Chevy staying "low tech"...."If it ain't broke, Don't fix it"...This rear has PROVEN to be reliable, inexpensive and capable. I think they should use IRS as an option to "feel out the market". If they get some big orders, then consider a limited model production, like "Standard on RS" only...I wouldn't mind buying a second 5th Gen to "cruise around" on uneven pavement in..(the only real advantage of IRS)
(I've seen the Dana's blow spider gears or chip off some teeth, but not blow an axle. BUT, every Vette I've seen that made "Serious Power" swapped the rear, first thing...)(And I've never seen a Lingenfelter TT Vette with a stock live axle either..)
01-10-2004, 01:04 AM
#29
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Originally posted by 90rocz
For a touring car, IRS is probably going to be better, BUT for simplicity, interchangability, upgrade-ability and performance, sticking with a solid rear axle makes more sense from every perspective. These new models are starting to push the power limits on things like the IRS we're used to seeing. Maybe their just trying to aviod some recalls...
For a touring car, IRS is probably going to be better, BUT for simplicity, interchangability, upgrade-ability and performance, sticking with a solid rear axle makes more sense from every perspective. These new models are starting to push the power limits on things like the IRS we're used to seeing. Maybe their just trying to aviod some recalls...
As far as Chevy staying "low tech"...."If it ain't broke, Don't fix it"...This rear has PROVEN to be reliable, inexpensive and capable. I think they should use IRS as an option to "feel out the market". If they get some big orders, then consider a limited model production, like "Standard on RS" only...I wouldn't mind buying a second 5th Gen to "cruise around" on uneven pavement in..(the only real advantage of IRS)
A live rear axle only does one thing well. It keeps two wheels in place, on a completely glass smooth surface, going in a straight line...too bad we don't drive like that.
MacPherson struts only do one thing well also, they keep the beancounter happy.
It's one thing to say....go with struts and lively axle because they are cheaper or maybe simpler....but PULLLEEZE don't try to tell me that they are better.
Last edited by Z284ever; 01-10-2004 at 01:18 AM.
01-10-2004, 01:04 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
Posts: 2,947
Since noone is saying anything about the New Stangs "Looks", I'll give my opinion.
Good concept, but too "Retro", I liked the '70 Fast-Backs, but I think they pushed it just a little to close to that image..
I would've liked to see a more modern front end...
More "sleek", and less cut-up, or busy...Just should've toned it down a notch is all..
Good concept, but too "Retro", I liked the '70 Fast-Backs, but I think they pushed it just a little to close to that image..
I would've liked to see a more modern front end...
More "sleek", and less cut-up, or busy...Just should've toned it down a notch is all..