IRS poll
- Thread starter Zinc001
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Are you talking about this poll or the one Ford conducted with Mustang folks as FFW and the such? If you are talking about the later point me to where it said 62% of people wanted the IRS instead.rhumbline said:
The fact is it will add cost and weight to the car the live axle does not I don't want to pay more money to get a Mustang that has an IRS then immediately rip the thing out to get a solid axle. Option yes. Stock hell no.
If you polled the entire site likely yes and I dare say the numbers would be similar amongst Mustang enthusiasts all over. The groups would basically split into the largest group not caring and wanting to keep the cost down, the next largest wanting a solid axle and the smallest group wanting the IRS. Well I want F1 style shifters and they should be made stock. It doesn't matter if it add cost to the car and everybody else will have little to no use for it but will still pay for it if they want the car.
It should use the axle that can still handle well and keep the costs down. An IRS is NOT needed for a car to have managable street manners. It doublely isn't needed when those that don't care either way won't be doing driving extreme enough to warrant an IRS.
Would they appreciate it? Yep. Would they be willing to pay another 1000 bucks for it? Likely not. If you tell an average driver in a car with an IRS and one with a live axle and have them do their normal every day driving most wouldn't think it was worth an extra grand.
And I don't drive like a nutjob on the roads thusly I don't need it nor do I want to pay extra for it.
But you are punishing those that DON'T NEED the thing by making them pay extra for it. If they want the improved ride sure give them the option but making a third of your customer base pay extra money for a heavy useless hunk they won't use and will spend more money to get rid of is bad business. Doublely so in the light of if you told those other folks they are paying a lot extra for what most won't even notice to begin with they wouldn't be too happy about it.
Option yes. Standard no.
Here is the difference. With the live axle you aren't paying extra. It's old cheap tech that most people can easily manage with. Force the people that want a live axle does the following. They have to pay MORE for the car to begin with. They have to pay yet more to get a solid axle and likely even more to get it installed. The IRS folks pay less for the car with the live axle they can then go out and use the money they would have spent on the car with the IRS and get a nice IRS setup put in. You lack the extra step and the extra cost if you start with the 8.8" rear.Mach460 said:
So why does virtually every new car available today have IRS standard? Most drivers are not enthusiasts, but everyone benefits from improved ride quality, and at some point most people benefit from superior handling. If you want to drag race, fine, but how can you say that IRS is useless? How many cars can you name that don't have IRS? MKIV Golf/Jetta are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, and they are hardly considered enthusiast cars.
A friend in management at Ford told me that they dropped the IRS purely to save money after they were near completion on designing the IRS. The decision was made by a senior person at Ford (I can't remember his name.) Because of the change Ford spent more money than they were supposed to save because they ended up designing two rear ends. Also people were pulled off the front-end design team to design the live axel resulting in design failures in the front end that needed to be fixed costing even more money.
You can have all of the theories you want about why Ford made the decision it did but when it comes down to it things like this happen due to silly things like rash decisions by senior manager.
Interesting story about the original Mustang. Back in 63 Henry Ford II came down to the design studio to check out the work being done on the Mustang. He sat in the back seat and made a comment about it needed an extra inch of legroom. Because of that the engineers had to redesign the car to add an extra inch in the back seat.
You can have all of the theories you want about why Ford made the decision it did but when it comes down to it things like this happen due to silly things like rash decisions by senior manager.
Interesting story about the original Mustang. Back in 63 Henry Ford II came down to the design studio to check out the work being done on the Mustang. He sat in the back seat and made a comment about it needed an extra inch of legroom. Because of that the engineers had to redesign the car to add an extra inch in the back seat.
Omegalock said:
The cost of the IRS is speculative. Let's remember that the chassis was designed from the onset for IRS (it's based on the DEW98). As for weight, the added weight is minimal. Do you drag race seriously..Street Outlaw? Why should we placate the minority of Mustang owners?
Omegalock said:
Do you want a Mustang with manageable street manners...or do you want a Mustang that can handle with the best of them. There's a reason why BMW earned the tag line "the Ultimate Driving Machine". Do you want the Mustang to appeal to the classic American muscle car crowd (which is getting smaller and smaller every year) or do you want the Mustang to grow and attract new buyers and attract people who would otherwise buy a 350Z. The Mustang isn't going to make a profit by attracting drag racers and 19 year old college girls alone. You don't have to drive the Mustang to extremes to know the live axle's limitations. Like I've said, I go over a bridge expansion joint on the highway and the rear end is all over the place. The first sign of rain of snow and I'm near panic mode.
Omegalok said:
Depends on the car you're talking about. You a guy who drives a 350Z, and put him in a Mustang GT..and yeah, he'll tell you the difference.
Omegalok said:
Like I said, you don't have to drive like a nutjob to appreciate the superior handling that the IRS offers. A more supple, smoother, and positive ride.
Omegalok said:
To placate a small percentage of the market and the risk not attracting new buyers is bad business as well. The most important thing about the car is how it drives. If the cars potential buyer's are turned off by the cars handling and go to the 350Z, how's that good business?
RodStang said:
It was Phil Maerten's, Ford Group Vice President (he admitted as much in interviews). If what you say it's true, then I'm very dissappointed with Ford, and frankly unsure about the car. It shows that instead of the package being optimized, it was compromised, much like the 99-04 Cobra is compromised. Not good honestly.
It also shows that American manufacturers have learned absolutely nothing from the imports.
Lets see 350z is well over 30k, vette 50k, viper 80k. Hum wonder how much the GT would be if they designed a good IRS unit. 30k or so in my mind.
As far as the drag racers getting there way or the track guys getting there way you can all them all together and it wouldn't be over 1 or 2 percent period.
99% of people want a sporty car and the PRICE is the most important. I think that's why there's tons or MACH's and Cobra's not being sold and rebates are happening. 25k or less for a car out the door is what most of the buying public is will to spend IMO. The higher priced cars are car guys and gals and we all spend way too much on are passion, but oh well life is short
As far as the drag racers getting there way or the track guys getting there way you can all them all together and it wouldn't be over 1 or 2 percent period.
99% of people want a sporty car and the PRICE is the most important. I think that's why there's tons or MACH's and Cobra's not being sold and rebates are happening. 25k or less for a car out the door is what most of the buying public is will to spend IMO. The higher priced cars are car guys and gals and we all spend way too much on are passion, but oh well life is short
ttown said:Lets see 350z is well over 30k, vette 50k, viper 80k. Hum wonder how much the GT would be if they designed a good IRS unit. 30k or so in my mind.
As far as the drag racers getting there way or the track guys getting there way you can all them all together and it wouldn't be over 1 or 2 percent period.
99% of people want a sporty car and the PRICE is the most important. I think that's why there's tons or MACH's and Cobra's not being sold and rebates are happening. 25k or less for a car out the door is what most of the buying public is will to spend IMO. The higher priced cars are car guys and gals and we all spend way too much on are passion, but oh well life is short
Base MSRP for a Nissan 350Z is 26,370.00 (according to Nissan's website). The number being floated around here for a Mustang GT is 26,900.00. The honest truth is that the Nissan is the Mustangs direct competitor...and when it comes time for road test comparisons...I'm afraid the Nissan is going to win out.
fly2low
New Member
I am the devil's advocate and I urge you to test drive Mitsu Evo and Subaru STi. Before you say anything about them, just go to your local dealers and drive those cars. If you never drive them, you can't judge them. Then, we'll talk 
.
350Z is not even close.
I love Mustangs, but those 2 cars are simply incredible. Not only for the price, but simply incredible. If I dare to compare, the STi feels brutal like the F-15 and the Evo is very agile like the F-16. Sure, you'll have to drop the clutch from 6k rpm to properly launch the Evo (4.8 secs 0-60mph 13.4 secs 1/4 mile). However, when that first turn comes, you'd really appreciate those big brembos, that grappy Recaro, and you can kiss understeer goodbye.
.350Z is not even close.
I love Mustangs, but those 2 cars are simply incredible. Not only for the price, but simply incredible. If I dare to compare, the STi feels brutal like the F-15 and the Evo is very agile like the F-16. Sure, you'll have to drop the clutch from 6k rpm to properly launch the Evo (4.8 secs 0-60mph 13.4 secs 1/4 mile). However, when that first turn comes, you'd really appreciate those big brembos, that grappy Recaro, and you can kiss understeer goodbye.
OK try and find a 350z for that around here they are over 30k. The MSRP on the 02 Z28 was like 22k and you couldn't get one for near that either. The real price of a car is what you can get one in the real world out the door not MSRP.
The GTO's MSRP is a little over 32k but in the real world you get the standard auto and you must pay 1k for gas gusslers tax or you can get the 6 speed manual for a $695 option. All that while the over 35k Cobra can be had for about the same price out the door or even cheaper right now.
The GTO's MSRP is a little over 32k but in the real world you get the standard auto and you must pay 1k for gas gusslers tax or you can get the 6 speed manual for a $695 option. All that while the over 35k Cobra can be had for about the same price out the door or even cheaper right now.
Mach460 said:
I can't believe how that mis-information from M/T keeps carrying on.
Car & Driver: "GT about $25K"
Autoweek: " GT for less than $25K"
Hot Rod: "Maximum price for a fully loaded GT under $30K"
But you guys keep throwning around the #'s from the one rag that got it wrong.
fly2low
New Member
ttown said:
If the 350z doesn't do it for you, how about the RX-8? 25k.
Although I don't see it hurting sales initially, I think that down the road, IRS will have to become standard. The Mustang has new competition. Its not just cars with V8s but WRXs, 350z, RX-8, EVO, SRT-4. All of these vehicles are formidable competition right now. Given the fact that most of these cars can run with a 99+ GT and handle better, which car will a non biased buyer pick?
I biased. I love Mustangs. I wouldn't own any other sporty type car. However, not all people are as loyal as I. They will buy the best performing car for the cheapest price.
Finally, if you wanted a 22k Camaro, you should have went to the dealer and ordered one. Secondly, they were giving the things away. I'm sure you could have gotten a 26k model for 22k. No one was buying them. Only a sucker pays MSRP. Hell, I bet if you did your homework, you could walk out of the dealership tomorrow with an '04 Mustang GT 5sp Premium for 20k.
I can't believe anyone would pay actual U.S. dollars for a car with IRS.
The fundamental idea of IRS is to allow one wheel to move up without forcing the other one down, and vice-versa. I can't see where that is an advantage, unless a car is being constantly run through big potholes.
Generally, we expected our roads to be FLAT. If your roads aren't at least approximately flat, you need to b1tch at your local Board of Supervisors, not at Ford.
And it's not hard to make a car without IRS ride well. Late 60s Oldsmobiles rode better than anything on the road today. With proper tires, they also launched better from a stop than any IRS car, except perhaps for one with 4-wheel drive.
IRS certainly doesn't improve handling on a race track, unless it's a damn crappy race track. After all, on a decent track the road will be flat, or banked, so that there will be no difference in wheel positioning between an IRS car and a straight-axle car.
On a drag strip, there is no comparison. And this brings up a point I have argued for a long time, but which contradicts common "sense": what's good on the dragstrip is good on the street. Modern cars emphasize cornering ability. But when is the last time you took a 90-degree turn at 30 mph? On the street, most 90-degree turns are in residential neighborhoods, where taking a corner at over 10 mph will get you yelled at by frustrated old men in ill-fitting clothes. OK, now when is the last time you had to accelerate quickly from a dead stop in a straight line? Hmmm... this only happens at every red light an on ramp in the country, over and over again every day.
Another example: it is often said that torque matters on the street. Some people will admit that torque is less important than power on the drag strip, but I have never heard anyone say that torque doesn't matter on the street or the strip. But that's exactly what I think. Torque makes a car feel fast. But acceleration is determined by power. Torque has nothing to do with it. And acceleration matters on the street. If you want a good street car, you basically need to build a drag race car.
I'm not saying we should all switch to Holley Double-Pumpers, 3000rpm torque convertors, "spool" rear-ends, slapper bars, and fiberglass hoods. But the fact remains that, on a typical day of street driving, most people will use about 90% of their cars acceleration ability and 10% of its cornering ability.
Besides, are we really supposed to believe that a '99+ Cobra is built to ride well? Who cares about that? How much ground clearance does a Cobra have anyway? It's going to bottom out on really big potholes, and IRS won't help that.
To me, IRS falls into the same category as hood decals, vinyl tops, and air pumps. It's a waste of money, and people pay money for it because it distracts from a car's lack of acceleration and/or they don't know any better.
The typical argument I hear from IRS fans is that the straight axle is primitive. A few years ago, RWD was considered primitive. So should we have all felt guilty back then about driving a car that did not have a sideways engine? Well, no; RWD has come back into vogue. I don't know if IRS will ever fall out of favor, but the point is that the mere fact that something is in vogue does not make it objectively desirable.
Personally, I will take the Ford 8.8" straight axle over any other option. It is easily servicable, inexpensive, favors acceleration, and reduces parasitic loss.
The fundamental idea of IRS is to allow one wheel to move up without forcing the other one down, and vice-versa. I can't see where that is an advantage, unless a car is being constantly run through big potholes.
Generally, we expected our roads to be FLAT. If your roads aren't at least approximately flat, you need to b1tch at your local Board of Supervisors, not at Ford.
And it's not hard to make a car without IRS ride well. Late 60s Oldsmobiles rode better than anything on the road today. With proper tires, they also launched better from a stop than any IRS car, except perhaps for one with 4-wheel drive.
IRS certainly doesn't improve handling on a race track, unless it's a damn crappy race track. After all, on a decent track the road will be flat, or banked, so that there will be no difference in wheel positioning between an IRS car and a straight-axle car.
On a drag strip, there is no comparison. And this brings up a point I have argued for a long time, but which contradicts common "sense": what's good on the dragstrip is good on the street. Modern cars emphasize cornering ability. But when is the last time you took a 90-degree turn at 30 mph? On the street, most 90-degree turns are in residential neighborhoods, where taking a corner at over 10 mph will get you yelled at by frustrated old men in ill-fitting clothes. OK, now when is the last time you had to accelerate quickly from a dead stop in a straight line? Hmmm... this only happens at every red light an on ramp in the country, over and over again every day.
Another example: it is often said that torque matters on the street. Some people will admit that torque is less important than power on the drag strip, but I have never heard anyone say that torque doesn't matter on the street or the strip. But that's exactly what I think. Torque makes a car feel fast. But acceleration is determined by power. Torque has nothing to do with it. And acceleration matters on the street. If you want a good street car, you basically need to build a drag race car.
I'm not saying we should all switch to Holley Double-Pumpers, 3000rpm torque convertors, "spool" rear-ends, slapper bars, and fiberglass hoods. But the fact remains that, on a typical day of street driving, most people will use about 90% of their cars acceleration ability and 10% of its cornering ability.
Besides, are we really supposed to believe that a '99+ Cobra is built to ride well? Who cares about that? How much ground clearance does a Cobra have anyway? It's going to bottom out on really big potholes, and IRS won't help that.
To me, IRS falls into the same category as hood decals, vinyl tops, and air pumps. It's a waste of money, and people pay money for it because it distracts from a car's lack of acceleration and/or they don't know any better.
The typical argument I hear from IRS fans is that the straight axle is primitive. A few years ago, RWD was considered primitive. So should we have all felt guilty back then about driving a car that did not have a sideways engine? Well, no; RWD has come back into vogue. I don't know if IRS will ever fall out of favor, but the point is that the mere fact that something is in vogue does not make it objectively desirable.
Personally, I will take the Ford 8.8" straight axle over any other option. It is easily servicable, inexpensive, favors acceleration, and reduces parasitic loss.
CuddaWuddaShuda said:
Virtually everyone (except Mustang and truck drivers) already does. So believe it.
Where do you live? The roads here suck ass, and complaining to the Board of Supervisors isn't going to change that. Might as well adapt to the situation.
It's not hard to make a live axle ride well, and it's not hard to make a live axle handle. But it's damn near impossible to have both, and I want both.
All the freaking time!! In fact, I do it much faster than 30. The only problem is I have to be extremely careful as to where I do it, due to the disadvantages of the live axle.
I'm hardly ever at the front at a stop light, and when I am I'm usually in the city and tend to take it easy. And the on ramps I use have pretty sharp turns. So pretty much any time I'm doing any spirited driving, I'm not going in a straight line. Don't get me wrong, I like power, but on an average day, the pedal does not reach the floor, but I do tend to turn the steering wheel...several times, in fact!
Then can you explain why 99% of cars on the road have IRS?
RWD was NEVER considered primitive with performance enthusiasts. And trust me, IRS is not going away, because a solid axle is only good at one thing, and IRS is good at many.
CuddaWuddaShuda said:
I think you got this all wrong. There are '03 Cobras that run in the 10s with IRS. They seem to have no problem going fast. That with a retrofitted IRS on a car that wasn't designed to have IRS.
Seems to me like only professional drag racers would need the live axle. I'm sure you would want that toughness when you have a car that runs 8s. However, those cars are so modified that they can hardly be considered a "street" car. In my opinion, they can just fab up a live axle like they do for stuff on the rest of the car.
I don't know where you live, but here in PA we have potholes. The bone jarring ride sucks. How about going over a washboard surface? I can feel the car twist. Have passengers in the back seat? Hit a bump and watch them smack their head of the roof because the car sent them flying. Going fast and hit a bump? Feel the back end of the car hop and scare you half to death.
I've driven my Mustang pleanty hard on the road, and sometimes it's down right scary. I've also been in other automobiles that have a much more connected feel with the road. Sorry, but IRS is a world of difference.
If live axles are so superior, why don't we just throw one on for the front suspension too, kind of like older trucks? Maybe we can have the sweet Ford wheel well gap that makes a Mustang look like a '78 F250 too.
Similar threads
