Why isn't anyone talking about Ford's Interceptor Concept?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
The predictable nature of the suspension is owed to its simplicity. While the previous Cobra had an independent rear, SVT decided to work with the car's stock live axle setup, refining it to match the characteristics of the car. O'Connell said a modular approach to an independent rear (on the previous car, the independent rear bolted into the same space as the stock axle) would have added weight, cost and still would not have had the optimum geometry because of the packaging constraints.[/i] The GT500 is no Ford GT, but it doesn't try to be. And buyers who will be looking to race the car will find that upgrades to the live-axle rear setup will be easy and inexpensive."
"We talked to a lot of Mustang owners when we were developing this program," said Hau Thai-Tang, chief nameplate engineer. "They are a very passionate group, and a lot of them told us – very strongly – that the all-new Mustang must have a solid rear axle."
Although the other DEW vehicles have all-independent suspensions, the 2005 Mustang goes without. That’s mainly to keep down costs, says Thai-Tang. It’s also partly because the majority of Mustang owners don’t know or care what kind of rear suspension they have, he says, and partly to serve street racers and quarter-milers who love a live axle’s simplicity and cheap interchangeability.
Although the other DEW vehicles have all-independent suspensions, the 2005 Mustang goes without. That’s mainly to keep down costs, says Thai-Tang. It’s also partly because the majority of Mustang owners don’t know or care what kind of rear suspension they have, he says, and partly to serve street racers and quarter-milers who love a live axle’s simplicity and cheap interchangeability.
From Phil Martens, advanced vehicle development at Ford at the time:
]“When I first got here [from Mazda in March 2002], I made the decision to put the solid axle back in. To go out and immediately disband what people know this car to be, which is the best high-performance sports car for under $20,000, is a mistake.”
Combined with things mentioned from conversations from Coletti and others at Ford, Ford decided to use feedback from Mustang racers who prefered a live axle to skip IRS because of weight & costs. SVT had the option of developing their own IRS or plugging in another system. For the amount of cash they would have had to pump into the rear for IRS, it would have offered only minimal advantage that wasn't worth the weight or cost. They couldn't simply plug in the DEW, and as mentioned, Ford Australia's CBS wasn't an optimal choice either.
They opted to put the moeny elsewhere, and wait till for Ford to spring for IRS for the whole Mustang line before they tinkered with it. A very wise decision.
IRS isn't a do-or-die, must-have, every-puropse item on every car. Especially on cars that will spend alot of time on the dragstrip, where IRS and mods to it put the unit at a disadvantage.
Save taking corners at hyper legal speeds & hitting a bump, I don't notice any advantage in day to day driving between my live axle Camaro and Mustangs I've rented many times to the Thunderbirds I've owned. If I don't notice any appreciable difference, I doubt 90% of the public cares either.
Something to think about. What if a magazine article tests a live axle Mustang against a IRS Camaro, and because of IRS' tendancy towards wheelhop, the Camaro skips and jumps (even if only slightly) while the live axle Mustang gets a clean clear launch every time?
Last edited by guionM; Dec 25, 2006 at 02:35 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
I have seen him on TV before and like all "stylists" (they at the word), he has a bit of creepiness to him.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
I would think that cheaper and able to handle more power would probably mean heavy.
Unless it's a solid axle.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Originally Posted by guionM
Something to think about. What if a magazine article tests a live axle Mustang against a IRS Camaro, and because of IRS' tendancy towards wheelhop, the Camaro skips and jumps (even if only slightly) while the live axle Mustang gets a clean clear launch every time?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Then people will say that the Camaro should have had a solid axle? I guess it's on GM to make sure that the Camaro IRS is up to the task, even if it comes out heavy. We already know that we don't want to sacrifice cost and durability -- at least not much. If the Camaro were expected to have a $32-$50K price point like a BMW 3 series, then sacrifice cost. The Camaro will have to sacrifice weight, if it comes down to a choice.
BTW, I'm told the Zeta IRS does not have a wheelhop issue, like the current Sigma does. Also, I don't want to publicly state what the cost difference to GM is for a IRS Camaro vs a live axle Camaro, but it's even less than the number quoted for Ford in this thread.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
autoxr166
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
0
Sep 25, 2015 04:21 PM
mark0006
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
Sep 14, 2015 12:35 PM