Some thoughts on Mustang....
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by ProudPony
I was eluding to running 2000+ hp through an IRS system.
Even 1200hp.
Those guys know that live axles are durable and strong, and far less complex.
KISS principle in action.
I wasn't referencing driving a top fuel car on the road.
Work with me here Darth! Show me some love!
I was eluding to running 2000+ hp through an IRS system.
Even 1200hp.
Those guys know that live axles are durable and strong, and far less complex.
KISS principle in action.
I wasn't referencing driving a top fuel car on the road.
Work with me here Darth! Show me some love!
Just pointing out that everything that makes sense for the strip does not have to apply to a vehicle that is run on the street 99.99999% of the time.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by Z28Wilson
NHRA doesn't use OHC motors either. Guess that means pushrod V8's are the way to go for "total performance."
Sorry Mustang guys, because they use large displacement, 16 valve pushrod V8's your little 4.6 won't have any success in drag racing! Kinda puts things in perspective, no?
OK - humor taken with a smile, and point noted.
Likewise, I guess we may as well throw away the tire technology they developed for drag radials, and forget the exotic kevlar clutch systems they developed that we see in our street cars huh? Those things must be as archaic as rock itself!
Enough puns and giggles - you know what I was driving at.
See, here's the thing. I'm all for keeping things simple, but an independent rear suspension doesn't have to be "more complicated", or (much) more costly, or weigh much more. It's just like you said, if most people don't know or don't care about what suspension setup their new pony car has why would you then assume they'd go for the solid axle Mustang all the time, assuming comparable models are just a few hundred dollars apart? You don't think maybe Camaro may have some cool features or a favorable interior layout to the Mustang, cost-free, that would help sway buyers?
Yeah, Camaro could offer other features that might sway buyers based on cost - but my point was making a lame defense for justification of the IRS system alone as a "performance" enhancement. Surely the HP difference between a '94 Z and a '94 GT WAS noticeable, yet look at the sales. Now try to pull it off with a much less noticeable enhancement - I just don't think it will matter.
As for options, back in 1966, there were almost endless options for the Mustang, from int/ext colors, to engines to seating (bench or buckets, deluxe or base) to wheels to vinyl tops, convertibles, fastbacks, coupes, 3 types of side mirrors - you name it. What Ford found out was that many options just never got ordered. (For example, I have a '69 Mustang coupe, I-6, 3-spd, with front bench seat and deluxe interior... 1 of 169 that year with the bench seat configuration) When Ford concluded that the cost associated with the option were not justified by the sales of the option, it was cancelled.
I'd propose doing the same with the future Mustang...
As I eluded to earlier, make it optional on every car for at least a couple years, show the buyer the added charge, and see if they sell. Simple. I'll wager that very few will opt for it, even with salesmen going for the add-ons with custom-ordered cars. Dealers ordering inventory cars could sway the tally towards more costs, because options are where the $ is made, but I still think most folks simply won't care.
The Camaro has had to live with the sigma of being a "low tech brute" for as long as I can remember. Mustang for the most part hasn't had that problem (
).....I firmly believe that to be taken seriously by all enthusiasts against not JUST the Mustang but the other gammut of sporty cars from Japan and Germany the Camaro needs a 21st-century suspension.
Fair enough. I agree with that statement 100%. But in addition to that statement, I would add that GM and Ford need to not lose focus on the tuners, hobbyists, and DIY-guys that are trying to have fun on Saturday nights after working a 40-hour week in a factory. Keep the options open, don't FORCE us to swallow a pill we don't want. I think the 21st century suspension should be designed and available for those who want it, but not force onto those who don't, and it's often those who don't want it that come into the racing parts catalog for more goodies too.
Fair enough?
NHRA doesn't use OHC motors either. Guess that means pushrod V8's are the way to go for "total performance."
Sorry Mustang guys, because they use large displacement, 16 valve pushrod V8's your little 4.6 won't have any success in drag racing! Kinda puts things in perspective, no?
OK - humor taken with a smile, and point noted.
Likewise, I guess we may as well throw away the tire technology they developed for drag radials, and forget the exotic kevlar clutch systems they developed that we see in our street cars huh? Those things must be as archaic as rock itself!
Enough puns and giggles - you know what I was driving at.
See, here's the thing. I'm all for keeping things simple, but an independent rear suspension doesn't have to be "more complicated", or (much) more costly, or weigh much more. It's just like you said, if most people don't know or don't care about what suspension setup their new pony car has why would you then assume they'd go for the solid axle Mustang all the time, assuming comparable models are just a few hundred dollars apart? You don't think maybe Camaro may have some cool features or a favorable interior layout to the Mustang, cost-free, that would help sway buyers?
Yeah, Camaro could offer other features that might sway buyers based on cost - but my point was making a lame defense for justification of the IRS system alone as a "performance" enhancement. Surely the HP difference between a '94 Z and a '94 GT WAS noticeable, yet look at the sales. Now try to pull it off with a much less noticeable enhancement - I just don't think it will matter.
As for options, back in 1966, there were almost endless options for the Mustang, from int/ext colors, to engines to seating (bench or buckets, deluxe or base) to wheels to vinyl tops, convertibles, fastbacks, coupes, 3 types of side mirrors - you name it. What Ford found out was that many options just never got ordered. (For example, I have a '69 Mustang coupe, I-6, 3-spd, with front bench seat and deluxe interior... 1 of 169 that year with the bench seat configuration) When Ford concluded that the cost associated with the option were not justified by the sales of the option, it was cancelled.
I'd propose doing the same with the future Mustang...
As I eluded to earlier, make it optional on every car for at least a couple years, show the buyer the added charge, and see if they sell. Simple. I'll wager that very few will opt for it, even with salesmen going for the add-ons with custom-ordered cars. Dealers ordering inventory cars could sway the tally towards more costs, because options are where the $ is made, but I still think most folks simply won't care.
The Camaro has had to live with the sigma of being a "low tech brute" for as long as I can remember. Mustang for the most part hasn't had that problem (
).....I firmly believe that to be taken seriously by all enthusiasts against not JUST the Mustang but the other gammut of sporty cars from Japan and Germany the Camaro needs a 21st-century suspension. Fair enough. I agree with that statement 100%. But in addition to that statement, I would add that GM and Ford need to not lose focus on the tuners, hobbyists, and DIY-guys that are trying to have fun on Saturday nights after working a 40-hour week in a factory. Keep the options open, don't FORCE us to swallow a pill we don't want. I think the 21st century suspension should be designed and available for those who want it, but not force onto those who don't, and it's often those who don't want it that come into the racing parts catalog for more goodies too.
Fair enough?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
My take on this:
Ford listens to the drag racers. That's great, really is, that the drag race crowd gets the Mustang they really wanted, but do you really think they put the solid axle in the car just for the drag racers?
How many people that own mustangs race them? I'll say 10% and I think that is being more than generous.
We all know IRS provides better overall ride comfort and superior car control on rough pavement since movement of each tire is independent of the other. I happen to live in the state with the best roads in the country (as voted by a national trucking association), and even here a live axle car has its problems on city streets and in interstate construction zones. My rear has stepped out on my at far less than WOT.
I do not honestly thing Ford would have made a move to a solid axle just to please 10% at most of its possible customers while delivering a less pleasing product to the other 90%.
I think the "we listen to racers" thing is cool, certainly would feel good to get asked by GM what I wanted in a 5th gen, but in all honesty I think Ford was looking for an excuse to stay with the live axle and cut costs, and having the backing of the racer crowd merely cemented the choice. The strut front was clearly a cost decision too.
Now, I am not harpooning Ford's choices here. Mustang has always been affordable, and to increase the content of the car but make it inaccessible to its prime market would be death to Ford's flagship. I think they watched the 4th gen die a similar death and they learned from it.
Do I want a sophisticated front AND rear suspension in the 5th gen? Yes, but not if that means they will be priced out of the range of most buyers in this demographic.
I think the car magazines are going to hammer Ford over this choice, but at the same time when the sales figures come in and they still have the best selling coupe in the country, Ford will have the last laugh.
Hopefully GM has the economies of scale with a high volume rear-drive platform that will allow us to get IRS and a cheap base coupe. It has to be priced close to Mustang or it won't sell.
Ford listens to the drag racers. That's great, really is, that the drag race crowd gets the Mustang they really wanted, but do you really think they put the solid axle in the car just for the drag racers?
How many people that own mustangs race them? I'll say 10% and I think that is being more than generous.
We all know IRS provides better overall ride comfort and superior car control on rough pavement since movement of each tire is independent of the other. I happen to live in the state with the best roads in the country (as voted by a national trucking association), and even here a live axle car has its problems on city streets and in interstate construction zones. My rear has stepped out on my at far less than WOT.
I do not honestly thing Ford would have made a move to a solid axle just to please 10% at most of its possible customers while delivering a less pleasing product to the other 90%.
I think the "we listen to racers" thing is cool, certainly would feel good to get asked by GM what I wanted in a 5th gen, but in all honesty I think Ford was looking for an excuse to stay with the live axle and cut costs, and having the backing of the racer crowd merely cemented the choice. The strut front was clearly a cost decision too.
Now, I am not harpooning Ford's choices here. Mustang has always been affordable, and to increase the content of the car but make it inaccessible to its prime market would be death to Ford's flagship. I think they watched the 4th gen die a similar death and they learned from it.
Do I want a sophisticated front AND rear suspension in the 5th gen? Yes, but not if that means they will be priced out of the range of most buyers in this demographic.
I think the car magazines are going to hammer Ford over this choice, but at the same time when the sales figures come in and they still have the best selling coupe in the country, Ford will have the last laugh.
Hopefully GM has the economies of scale with a high volume rear-drive platform that will allow us to get IRS and a cheap base coupe. It has to be priced close to Mustang or it won't sell.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by Z28Wilson
The Camaro has had to live with the sigma of being a "low tech brute" for as long as I can remember. Mustang for the most part hasn't had that problem ( ).....I firmly believe that to be taken seriously by all enthusiasts against not JUST the Mustang but the other gammut of sporty cars from Japan and Germany the Camaro needs a 21st-century suspension.
The Camaro has had to live with the sigma of being a "low tech brute" for as long as I can remember. Mustang for the most part hasn't had that problem (
).....I firmly believe that to be taken seriously by all enthusiasts against not JUST the Mustang but the other gammut of sporty cars from Japan and Germany the Camaro needs a 21st-century suspension.
1)GM already has a "high tech brute" called the Vette
2)Name me a German or *** car that compared to F4 performance per $
3)Name me ANY car that could do what the F4 did for $25k
Maybe the low-tech brute trophy ain't such a bad one to have on the shelf...
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by Chris 96 WS6
My take on this:
Ford listens to the drag racers. That's great, really is, that the drag race crowd gets the Mustang they really wanted, but do you really think they put the solid axle in the car just for the drag racers?
How many people that own mustangs race them? I'll say 10% and I think that is being more than generous.
We all know IRS provides better overall ride comfort and superior car control on rough pavement since movement of each tire is independent of the other. I happen to live in the state with the best roads in the country (as voted by a national trucking association), and even here a live axle car has its problems on city streets and in interstate construction zones. My rear has stepped out on my at far less than WOT.
I do not honestly thing Ford would have made a move to a solid axle just to please 10% at most of its possible customers while delivering a less pleasing product to the other 90%.
I think the "we listen to racers" thing is cool, certainly would feel good to get asked by GM what I wanted in a 5th gen, but in all honesty I think Ford was looking for an excuse to stay with the live axle and cut costs, and having the backing of the racer crowd merely cemented the choice. The strut front was clearly a cost decision too.
Now, I am not harpooning Ford's choices here. Mustang has always been affordable, and to increase the content of the car but make it inaccessible to its prime market would be death to Ford's flagship. I think they watched the 4th gen die a similar death and they learned from it.
Do I want a sophisticated front AND rear suspension in the 5th gen? Yes, but not if that means they will be priced out of the range of most buyers in this demographic.
I think the car magazines are going to hammer Ford over this choice, but at the same time when the sales figures come in and they still have the best selling coupe in the country, Ford will have the last laugh.
Hopefully GM has the economies of scale with a high volume rear-drive platform that will allow us to get IRS and a cheap base coupe. It has to be priced close to Mustang or it won't sell.
My take on this:
Ford listens to the drag racers. That's great, really is, that the drag race crowd gets the Mustang they really wanted, but do you really think they put the solid axle in the car just for the drag racers?
How many people that own mustangs race them? I'll say 10% and I think that is being more than generous.
We all know IRS provides better overall ride comfort and superior car control on rough pavement since movement of each tire is independent of the other. I happen to live in the state with the best roads in the country (as voted by a national trucking association), and even here a live axle car has its problems on city streets and in interstate construction zones. My rear has stepped out on my at far less than WOT.
I do not honestly thing Ford would have made a move to a solid axle just to please 10% at most of its possible customers while delivering a less pleasing product to the other 90%.
I think the "we listen to racers" thing is cool, certainly would feel good to get asked by GM what I wanted in a 5th gen, but in all honesty I think Ford was looking for an excuse to stay with the live axle and cut costs, and having the backing of the racer crowd merely cemented the choice. The strut front was clearly a cost decision too.
Now, I am not harpooning Ford's choices here. Mustang has always been affordable, and to increase the content of the car but make it inaccessible to its prime market would be death to Ford's flagship. I think they watched the 4th gen die a similar death and they learned from it.
Do I want a sophisticated front AND rear suspension in the 5th gen? Yes, but not if that means they will be priced out of the range of most buyers in this demographic.
I think the car magazines are going to hammer Ford over this choice, but at the same time when the sales figures come in and they still have the best selling coupe in the country, Ford will have the last laugh.
Hopefully GM has the economies of scale with a high volume rear-drive platform that will allow us to get IRS and a cheap base coupe. It has to be priced close to Mustang or it won't sell.
The only thing I might add to your comments is that Ford did not just ask the drag racers what they wanted... they survey everything from NMRA guys to MCA members to general public test groups/focus groups. My understanding is that all groups favored the live unit over IRS (go figure?).
Now don't ask me to try to explain people's thought processes, cause I can't. I just know what works for me. I want IRS on top-end Mustangs only (at least for now).
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Come to think of it...how big a role do you guys think packaging played in determining the front suspension type? I would assume that the 4.6 (especially Dohc) and 5.4 varients would make for a fairly tight fit in most engine compartments. Taking fitment into question, do you guys think this could have been the deciding factor? Do you think it could have played a bigger role than cost?
Personally, IRS would be nice. I would have liked to see it as an extra cost option.
Personally, IRS would be nice. I would have liked to see it as an extra cost option.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,646
From: Portland, OR
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Come to think of it...how big a role do you guys think packaging played in determining the front suspension type? I would assume that the 4.6 (especially Dohc) and 5.4 varients would make for a fairly tight fit in most engine compartments. Taking fitment into question, do you guys think this could have been the deciding factor? Do you think it could have played a bigger role than cost?
Personally, IRS would be nice. I would have liked to see it as an extra cost option.
Come to think of it...how big a role do you guys think packaging played in determining the front suspension type? I would assume that the 4.6 (especially Dohc) and 5.4 varients would make for a fairly tight fit in most engine compartments. Taking fitment into question, do you guys think this could have been the deciding factor? Do you think it could have played a bigger role than cost?
Personally, IRS would be nice. I would have liked to see it as an extra cost option.
Granted the Camaro isn't supposed to be a technoligal showcase, but the same time, it is 2004.
How about we move onto the next heated discussion, like how much the new front end looks like a pickup truck (what!? whoa?! did I say that? hey, what's one more stone at the hornets' nest at this point).
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 562
From: Mich.
Dream 94 your right-There is a very solid reason for the struts being on the 05 Mustang.The DEW98 engine bay has an opening for an engine that is 30.5 inches wide.The D.O.H.C. 4.6 is ruffly 30 inches wide.Now I dont know how man rocket scientist are here, But that will not work in a production vehicle.Now you know WHY Ford changed the front suspension.DEW98 cannot swallow a dohc 4.6 or a 5.4
As for the rear end being a solid.NOBODY knows how nice/ruff it rides/handles.Im certain it will ride nicer then a 3rd/4th Gen F car..
The other part is if the 5th Gen Camaro were to be designed to only have a IRS,What makes you think you can just slap a solid axle on it?The 99-04 Mustang IRS was designed to fit in the standard location of the upper/lower arm mounts.If Ford did not put a solid in the Mustang it would have a very short future.
Mustang guys want to drag/road race their Mustangs.And Im sorry there are a ton of Mustangs running around roadcourses (F-Bodies too) with a solid that are doing just fine.Heck a Camaro won the SCCA race on speed on Xmas.Do you think it had a solid axle in it???
What this thread boils down to is this.Who ever is looking to buy a Mustang will.The car will sell its self.It has for years and still does.This thread wont do anything to alter that.
As for the rear end being a solid.NOBODY knows how nice/ruff it rides/handles.Im certain it will ride nicer then a 3rd/4th Gen F car..
The other part is if the 5th Gen Camaro were to be designed to only have a IRS,What makes you think you can just slap a solid axle on it?The 99-04 Mustang IRS was designed to fit in the standard location of the upper/lower arm mounts.If Ford did not put a solid in the Mustang it would have a very short future.
Mustang guys want to drag/road race their Mustangs.And Im sorry there are a ton of Mustangs running around roadcourses (F-Bodies too) with a solid that are doing just fine.Heck a Camaro won the SCCA race on speed on Xmas.Do you think it had a solid axle in it???
What this thread boils down to is this.Who ever is looking to buy a Mustang will.The car will sell its self.It has for years and still does.This thread wont do anything to alter that.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,547
From: Panhandle of West Virginia
Originally posted by Pentatonic
I am one of those owners that doesn't care about handling all that much. Hell, my car is an auto.
I support the solid axle decision for the Mustang GT. Solid axles are easier to work with and weigh less. If I'm at the track, I sure don't care if it doesn't handle as good as the IRS. I'm sure a lot of the Mustang guys feel the same way.
I am one of those owners that doesn't care about handling all that much. Hell, my car is an auto.
I support the solid axle decision for the Mustang GT. Solid axles are easier to work with and weigh less. If I'm at the track, I sure don't care if it doesn't handle as good as the IRS. I'm sure a lot of the Mustang guys feel the same way.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,547
From: Panhandle of West Virginia
Re: This thread has developed into 2 groups
Originally posted by dream '94 Z28
...and if you don't care how you car handles, why did you buy a sports car? Granted it looks good parked on the curb.....
...and if you don't care how you car handles, why did you buy a sports car? Granted it looks good parked on the curb.....
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,547
From: Panhandle of West Virginia
Originally posted by ProudPony
OK...
I've watched this discussion go round full circle now. I just want to add some comments about the IRS/SLA/MPS comparisons...
A bump in the crown of an apex at WOT causes the rear to step out... Yup, dang sure does. And how many V6 buyers are going to have this happen to them?
Improved ride and handling characterisitics... definitely.
Again, how many penny-pinching high-school kids and college kids really care, and are willing to cough up another $1000 or so to have it in their basic V6 car or even the entry V8? I'd wager that most would pass on the IRS - even if it WERE available (me included) for the cost savings alone, but IF they spent extra money it would be for more motor, NOT an IRS system.
IRS in extreme HP situations is not very pretty. I realize some Callaway and Lingenfelter Vettes are very wild and maintain their IRS systems - great for them. Anybody here associate Lingenfelter or Callaway with cheapness? Low cost?
It is funny to me though why you don't see IRS on any NHRA rails or top fuel cars. These commercial race teams have money to burn and could choose whatever system they want, but stay with the ol' ring and stobs... for a reason.
Granted, you can break anything when abused the right way, but performance per pound per dollar, there is NO IRS SYSTEM ANYWHERE that will run 1/4's or 1/8's and live like a good live axle. For those of us who might go to the strip 2 or 3 times a month, and rack up 8-12 passes a night - it DOES matter.
And a personal note - Corvettes DO suffer from wheel-hop, I've seen it MANY times at the track myself. If you want to see it yourself, go to any street car event OR just rent the movie "Cannonball Run" and watch the red C4 (driven by Sammy Davis Jr and Dean Martin). There is a Nevada State Trooper after them in a Firebird, when the Vette does a 180 in the road. The wheels hopped like **** during braking for the 180 spin, then chirped/hopped like crazy when the driver nailed the gas taking off from a stop with the front wheels slightly turned. There's like 3 or 4 good shots of the C4 doing tire-smoking maneuvers, and the rear wheels are hopping in every shot - brakes OR accelerating.
Regardless, if you are suffering from wheel hop and want to stop it, it MUCH easier to do in a live axle system than an IRS unit, and we won't start talking about the aftermarket available for each, will we?
LAST POINT - Ford has knocked a MAJOR HOME RUN with the Mustang for the last 15 years by allowing the buyer to buy a new car for cheap, then modify it to suit the individual. I see the decision to stay with live axles as a continuation of that successful formula. They give you the platform to start from, you do what you want with it. There are aftermarket suspension kits available from basic bushing kits to full-blown conversions - front AND rear. If you want it and you got the cash... you're all set. If you DON'T WANT IT, you didn't have to pay for it ANYWAYS when you bought your base V6 unit because you had NO CHOICE. And that too is what Mustang has been all about since the beginning - choices... options... personalization of your car to your lifestyle.
For heaven's sake guys, the F-cars had the Mustang GT beat hands-down in the "performance" category for the last decade... but did it REALLY MATTER!?!? I've said before, I DON'T WANT to see the Mustang lineup turned into luxury-loaded, sweet-riding, pimped-up bunch of overpriced tech-mobiles - I WANT IT SIMPLE!!!
"People", that is "people en-masse", do not CARE about performance, I swear it, and the sales numbers prove it. IMO, about 97% of the people just want good economic value wrapped in a stylish exterior - but they DEMAND...
1)Practicality - live axle has it.
2)Cost - live axle has it.
3)Functionality - live axle has it.
Now, I'll turn right around and tell you that if I choose to buy a Mustang Boss 302 or some such car in the next couple of years, I would like to be able to get IRS on it - and I WILL if it is available. I also want them to keep IRS as an option for the upscale cars like Cobra that can best utilize the system and where costs don't really matter. And the best suggestion I've heard yet is for Ford to simply make it optional on any Mustang at added cost, then the public could justify the demand.
As for Camaro, if you insist on bringing it back with mandatory IRS on all models, I think you'd be making a big mistake. In such a cut-throat market segment as the sportscar/ponycar market is becomming, with import pressures to boot, adding mandatory cost to the base models without visual impact or noticeable improvement is unwise IMO. Do you REALLY want to market a car with the slogan "...ours comes with IRS, unavailable on the base Mustang."?
How about "...ours has 335 horsepower, unavailable on the GT.", that sold really well now, didn't it?
Or maybe "...ours has SLA front suspension, not available on the Mustang.", that one shoulda sold 100k units alone... but didn't.
Don't you guys get it? The average Joe doesn't care! It's the styling, the daily usefullness, and the monthly payment that wins out in the battle for car sales volume.
Rant over. Appologies to those who may be offended at my stance and rhetoric. I just think the persuit of the best performance available has jaded the eyes of us enthusiasts, causing us to loose clear sight of what has made the Mustang so successful for so long... simplicity and cost of the basic cars - plain and simple.
Look no further than right here in this very forum... the Ford guys are pretty much happy with it, the GM guys maybe 50/50. Just verifies that Ford gave us what we asked for (or wanted)... again.
OK...
I've watched this discussion go round full circle now. I just want to add some comments about the IRS/SLA/MPS comparisons...
A bump in the crown of an apex at WOT causes the rear to step out... Yup, dang sure does. And how many V6 buyers are going to have this happen to them?
Improved ride and handling characterisitics... definitely.
Again, how many penny-pinching high-school kids and college kids really care, and are willing to cough up another $1000 or so to have it in their basic V6 car or even the entry V8? I'd wager that most would pass on the IRS - even if it WERE available (me included) for the cost savings alone, but IF they spent extra money it would be for more motor, NOT an IRS system.
IRS in extreme HP situations is not very pretty. I realize some Callaway and Lingenfelter Vettes are very wild and maintain their IRS systems - great for them. Anybody here associate Lingenfelter or Callaway with cheapness? Low cost?
It is funny to me though why you don't see IRS on any NHRA rails or top fuel cars. These commercial race teams have money to burn and could choose whatever system they want, but stay with the ol' ring and stobs... for a reason.
Granted, you can break anything when abused the right way, but performance per pound per dollar, there is NO IRS SYSTEM ANYWHERE that will run 1/4's or 1/8's and live like a good live axle. For those of us who might go to the strip 2 or 3 times a month, and rack up 8-12 passes a night - it DOES matter.
And a personal note - Corvettes DO suffer from wheel-hop, I've seen it MANY times at the track myself. If you want to see it yourself, go to any street car event OR just rent the movie "Cannonball Run" and watch the red C4 (driven by Sammy Davis Jr and Dean Martin). There is a Nevada State Trooper after them in a Firebird, when the Vette does a 180 in the road. The wheels hopped like **** during braking for the 180 spin, then chirped/hopped like crazy when the driver nailed the gas taking off from a stop with the front wheels slightly turned. There's like 3 or 4 good shots of the C4 doing tire-smoking maneuvers, and the rear wheels are hopping in every shot - brakes OR accelerating.
Regardless, if you are suffering from wheel hop and want to stop it, it MUCH easier to do in a live axle system than an IRS unit, and we won't start talking about the aftermarket available for each, will we?
LAST POINT - Ford has knocked a MAJOR HOME RUN with the Mustang for the last 15 years by allowing the buyer to buy a new car for cheap, then modify it to suit the individual. I see the decision to stay with live axles as a continuation of that successful formula. They give you the platform to start from, you do what you want with it. There are aftermarket suspension kits available from basic bushing kits to full-blown conversions - front AND rear. If you want it and you got the cash... you're all set. If you DON'T WANT IT, you didn't have to pay for it ANYWAYS when you bought your base V6 unit because you had NO CHOICE. And that too is what Mustang has been all about since the beginning - choices... options... personalization of your car to your lifestyle.
For heaven's sake guys, the F-cars had the Mustang GT beat hands-down in the "performance" category for the last decade... but did it REALLY MATTER!?!? I've said before, I DON'T WANT to see the Mustang lineup turned into luxury-loaded, sweet-riding, pimped-up bunch of overpriced tech-mobiles - I WANT IT SIMPLE!!!
"People", that is "people en-masse", do not CARE about performance, I swear it, and the sales numbers prove it. IMO, about 97% of the people just want good economic value wrapped in a stylish exterior - but they DEMAND...
1)Practicality - live axle has it.
2)Cost - live axle has it.
3)Functionality - live axle has it.
Now, I'll turn right around and tell you that if I choose to buy a Mustang Boss 302 or some such car in the next couple of years, I would like to be able to get IRS on it - and I WILL if it is available. I also want them to keep IRS as an option for the upscale cars like Cobra that can best utilize the system and where costs don't really matter. And the best suggestion I've heard yet is for Ford to simply make it optional on any Mustang at added cost, then the public could justify the demand.
As for Camaro, if you insist on bringing it back with mandatory IRS on all models, I think you'd be making a big mistake. In such a cut-throat market segment as the sportscar/ponycar market is becomming, with import pressures to boot, adding mandatory cost to the base models without visual impact or noticeable improvement is unwise IMO. Do you REALLY want to market a car with the slogan "...ours comes with IRS, unavailable on the base Mustang."?
How about "...ours has 335 horsepower, unavailable on the GT.", that sold really well now, didn't it?
Or maybe "...ours has SLA front suspension, not available on the Mustang.", that one shoulda sold 100k units alone... but didn't.
Don't you guys get it? The average Joe doesn't care! It's the styling, the daily usefullness, and the monthly payment that wins out in the battle for car sales volume.
Rant over. Appologies to those who may be offended at my stance and rhetoric. I just think the persuit of the best performance available has jaded the eyes of us enthusiasts, causing us to loose clear sight of what has made the Mustang so successful for so long... simplicity and cost of the basic cars - plain and simple.
Look no further than right here in this very forum... the Ford guys are pretty much happy with it, the GM guys maybe 50/50. Just verifies that Ford gave us what we asked for (or wanted)... again.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,547
From: Panhandle of West Virginia
Originally posted by Z28Wilson
NHRA doesn't use OHC motors either. Guess that means pushrod V8's are the way to go for "total performance."
Sorry Mustang guys, because they use large displacement, 16 valve pushrod V8's your little 4.6 won't have any success in drag racing! Kinda puts things in perspective, no?
NHRA doesn't use OHC motors either. Guess that means pushrod V8's are the way to go for "total performance."
Sorry Mustang guys, because they use large displacement, 16 valve pushrod V8's your little 4.6 won't have any success in drag racing! Kinda puts things in perspective, no?
Have you ever checked out the NMRA's modular classes? Best of the modulars is well into the 6's, best time for the SOHC GT is mid 8's. Yeah, they suck for drag racing
These cars are running very close to the other pro mods out there.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Originally posted by scott9050
Have you ever checked out the NMRA's modular classes? Best of the modulars is well into the 6's, best time for the SOHC GT is mid 8's. Yeah, they suck for drag racing These cars are running very close to the other pro mods out there.
Have you ever checked out the NMRA's modular classes? Best of the modulars is well into the 6's, best time for the SOHC GT is mid 8's. Yeah, they suck for drag racing
These cars are running very close to the other pro mods out there.