IRS poll

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by Zinc001, Jan 15, 2004.


?

What would you prefer to buy a mustang with?

  1. I.R.S.

    85 vote(s)
    53.5%
  2. Solid Rear Axle

    74 vote(s)
    46.5%
  1. ttown

    ttown Founding Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I live close to Hallett and in fact they brought out the new Mach 1 for a little romp with an 01 Cobra out there. What the Cobra gained on the turns it lost it the stright away due to the Mach's low end torque or course the Cobra won by a little over the soft drag racing ride of the Mach. But fact is many Mustangs other than the IRS cobra's are into road racing. Did you see the 10 page piece in 5.0 Mustang coparing a modded 01 Cobra, Mach (stock), and Bulliett(stock)? Even though the Cobra had modded tires and work to make it handle they perfer the solid axle setup of the Bullitt. The Mach's is about the same except for the spring are soft for weight transfer for drag racing. Again passing power means more to most that a few curves most of us drive on the road.

    If your talking about perfessional racing your right but then again you won't see IRS on a Drag strip.

    Mustang and the Vette are the only 2 ameriacn cars thats been around 40+ years. The RX8's/350Z's (type) go in and out of production they always had some advantage in the turns and if they were need so much on the steet you'd seen the Mustang gone a long time ago. Mustang got a nitche and that why they been around 40 years. JMO
  2. jcp123

    jcp123 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tyler, TX
    you know, guys, it's not a big deal. the irs bolts right into solid axle cars, if you really want the irs. and most people would never be able to tell the difference just driving it day-to-day. it's more marketing power than a definite advantage. don't sweat the small stuff, be happy that you're getting a new platform and the best styling since the 60's and the sn-95's and more power
  3. Mach460

    Mach460 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ayer, MA
    The problem is.......I have to either rely on the aftermarket or somebody junking up their Cobra (or whatever the car will be in 06) and spend the 1500 to 2500 to buy it and install it. You're basically telling us to do what you don't want to do. I'd rather have it directly from the factory. And it's not just a marketing advantage. It's been proven that the ride and handling capabilites of an IRS sytems far outweigh a live axle.
  4. (&)

    (&) Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas
    Nothing could be further from the truth. That is why you see IRS on virtually every car on the road, from the cheapest econobox to the fastest sports car.

    I think everyone would be happy if the V6, GT, and Cobra came with IRS, and there was another model, say...Mach I, that came with a solid axle to please the drag racers and simpletons. Maybe even with a wide array of features that could be deleted to save weight. As I've said before, the "GT" name is a misnomer if the car isn't set up for handling. The chassis was designed for IRS, and I suspect that the IRS design has already been ironed out, so there's really no reason not to. If you think it would raise the price of the car, consider that even the cheapest cars on the road have IRS. Overall sales would probably increase considering that a V6 with IRS would get better reviews in the automotive press for having better handling, ride, and a solid feel. The young women who are really the ones who are keeping the Mustang alive would appreciate a smooth ride that will allow them to put on their makeup without spilling their lattee. When the car is better, sales increase, and when sales increase, Ford has more money to add performance.
  5. shatner saves

    shatner saves New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That doesn't surpise me too much about Hallett. That track is all low to mid speed corners with no really long straights. I'd be surprised if they pulled 4th gear more than once a lap. The guy behind the wheel has a lot to doe with it as well.

    I'm sure that when the new car hits the streets, people will be amazed at just how good it is. I'm sure the new live axle will even work surprizingly well in the corners and in everyday driving. I am all for having the live axle as standard equipment. However, a well engineered, optional, IRS has the potential to make this car World-Class. All that and still under 30k. I'm not convinced that the difference between IRS and live axle would be more than $1000.

    Iv'e been wondering: with the diff. housing in and IRS car secured to the chassis, would Ford go back to a one piece driveshaft? If the driveshaft doesn't move as much, would the 2 piece design be redundant? What would the impact on cost be?

    Are there any potential strength issues with a 2 piece driveshaft for the drag racing crowd?
  6. 351CJ

    351CJ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This whole issue could be easily solved if Ford would just offer IRS as a reasonably priced option on both teh V6 & the GT. It would be better if IRS was standard and live axle was an option, but I'll take what I can get. :nice:

    And IRS has little to do with racing, road course or drag. I guarantee you that less than 10% of Mustang owners race their cars. IRS is all about making a more comfortable, better handling car that will appeal to a broader range of customers. :bang:
  7. 351CJ

    351CJ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With IRS, Ford would reatain the 2 piece driveshaft. Both the Lincoln LS & the T-Bird use 2 piece drive-shafts. It's about NVH and high speed smoothness.
  8. SVTdriver

    SVTdriver Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle Wa
    This is funny. Mustangs are great cars. Sure there is competition out there. But let's face it the evo and sti are going to outhandle the mustang even if it got IRS. They have 4wd to help them along. They are also more expensive than the gt. As far as the 350z s concerned. Sure if you get thebasic 350z. It's as expensive as the gt. But you get 2 count em 2 options. And you can't step up to a more powerful engine. The base model also does not have traction control. Even as an option. Nor does it come with cruise control. Or any optional stereo systems. The base model is a very compromising car. Where as the mustang you can option out nearly as much as you would like. And V6 owners needing an IRS suspension is kinda funny. I'd bet the majority of the V6 drivers don't get spirited enough in their driving to even come close to the limits of the solid axle. Much less test the need for IRS. Now whether I would rather have an IRS or the solid axle. I'm not going to be negative on the solid axle until we have real numbers. I thought about upgrading my 97 to an IRS. But even with my spirited driving. It's not something I need. I rip around corners and over potholes just fine. In 4 years I've only had 2 really scary moments. Both were the results of wet roads and my overacceleration. Which no IRS will ever help with. That being said. Maybe it should be an option. So why not petition Ford to make it an option?
  9. jcp123

    jcp123 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tyler, TX
    well what i'm getting at here is that in an ideal world, we'd all have what we want. but hte ideal world is pretty far away, to say the least. in the meantime, we gotta deal with reality. the reality is that there is a solid axle on it. if you want the irs, go ahead and find one and slap it on. i'm still skeptical that the irs offers a huge advantage in day-to-day driving, and i hope the irs is a helluva lot stronger than the crap they put on the focus i had. if you're gonna be cornering, the irs has a distinct advantage; but the mustang isn't, i don't think, gonna handle well enough with or without the irs to attract people who want a car that corners really well. they're probably gonna get an S-2000, evo, or a 350z anyway.
    also, i think $26,000 is getting up there anyway, irs would further add to the cost. maybe not much, but it adds up
  10. SportscarFan

    SportscarFan New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    AMEN, From Ames, IA.
    Add a Limited Slip, and ford would have a deal, maybe in a year or two.

    My wife's miata with 4 snow tires, IRS, Torsen Limited slip, and a 5 speed was comparable in the snow to my old 93 Probe GT with FWD, 5-speed, and 225/45-R16 All-season tires. A little common sense on the road in the snow, and the little sportscar will do OK. My 88 Mustang (before the Probe GT) with an automatic was a basketcase.

    My 2000 Ranger 4x4 is now (replaced the probe) the true blizzard warrior, though. Drove from Des Moines to Ames at 3am through more than 8 inches of falling new snow on the interstate, last february, no plows on the road. She's a keeper, but no performance car.
  11. jros

    jros Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Cobra Owner -

    Irs!!!
  12. 351CJ

    351CJ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The reasons why the Miata is so good in the snow have more to do with its near 50/50 F/R weight balance and the low torque its engine have relative to a Mustang than its IRS. The Fox & SN95 Mustangs have about a 57/43 F/R weight balance which hurts a RWD car in the snow. In addition, the Fox / SN05's weird low front roll center / high rear roll center and its 4 link rear suspension make the Mustang even more tail happy.

    The 2005 Mustang will have 53/47 F/R weight balance and vastly improved suspension both font & rear. I'd imagine that the 2005 will be significantly better in the snow than the 79 - 04 Stangs are.
  13. ttown

    ttown Founding Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    We already have Limited slip and IRS has nothing to do with traction on ice/snow :shrug: You guys need to get an FWD, AWD, or a 4X4 for your winter rides. Lets not start the internet rumor that IRS is perfect for ice and snow, RWD/Torque make driving in ice/snow trickey no matter if you have a solid axle or IRS.
  14. SportscarFan

    SportscarFan New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, the point that I am trying to make is this. I want a rear wheel drive performance car for less than 30,000$. The Mustang fits that bill, but it has been compromized, AFAIC. The Cobra is out of the price range.

    I already have a 4x4, and that is what I drive in the snow most of the time. HOWEVER, if I buy another car, it is not going to be put away for the winter. That means it must have modest ability to go in the snow. Just as the miata does now.

    The point I was making with my wife's miata is simply that rear wheel drive can do that, especially with IRS and limited slip. That way when one wheel needs to move over a chunk of ice, or a pothole, or expansion joint, or anything thicker than a dime, the other contact patch will maintain full traction on the width of the contact patch, not just the outside or inside edge, for braking or applying torque. The laws of physics work against a live axle in those situations, when one wheel moves, it directly affects the contact patch and traction, and spring/damper positions of the opposite tire, not matter what you try to do to pacify it. Once the coeficient of friction is overcome, the tires will spin until power is removed. The coeficient of friction of 1/3 of the tire's contact patch on ice or snow, is much less than the whole contact patch. you need all the traction you can get in ice or snow.

    Face it. A live axle is fine in a truck, where the rigity is neccessary for the carrying loads. (even SUVs are going independent, though) but in a car, where that is less important, and tires have much shorter sidewalls, and less flex, an independent setup is better in pretty much every circumstance except perhaps drag racing. (usually drag slicks have much taller sidewalls, and much more flex) That is like saying that a spool will work for the street. NOT.

    People who say that IRS is a price point consideration, I argue not. The original 60s/70s 240Z proved that. The Miata proves that. The RX8 proves that. pretty much every honest to god sportscar, regardless of price, in the last 30 years has had it. and many with much more than 300hp.

    The mustang would be either cheaper, or more profitable if the suspension engineers had only been expected to develop 1 rear end. It has been reported that the senior management forced the live axle issue to appease the minority of drag racers, and of those inexorably tied to the past. That is fine for them, but the price point argument is moot as far as I am concerned.

    The IRS system has already been developed for the most part, both for the mustang specifically, and the DEW98 platform in general, which share the same rear hard points. the R&D costs are spread with IRS, where the new live axle suspension development costs will have to be paid solely by Mustang customers. Per unit, that cost might actually be higher.

    So, the point that IRS is not attainable on a car less than 30k, is not true.
    The fact that live axles do just fine, is less than a stellar reason to stick to old technology when better is available for negligible, or no cost. I would argue the same for a six speed manual. No one says they have to use a T56, although that would be the better choice, but Getrag makes a nice one, too, I am told.

    The traditionalist Mustang fans want live axles, great. But those of us who want a new car, should be able to get one, not a new car with old parts, cause they "do OK." /end Rant.
  15. Postmortem

    Postmortem Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    cornfield, US
    Solid axle makes rear end fly whenever you turn left or right. Come on, we all know that. The theory that weight distribution makes tail happy doesn't stand- FWD cars have even worse F/R distribution but no problems. Not every car has 50/50.
    It is no big deal when road is dry. But when is winter, you lose control easily and hit wall on interstate etc.

    I had to go to 0mph at every left/right turn otherwise rear end will go away.
    Mustang is one of worst car to drive during winter. Many other cars are RWD too but they are driveable. What makes Mustang so bad? Light rear end + RWD + solid axle.
  16. SVTdriver

    SVTdriver Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle Wa
    I've never had my rear end fly out on a left or right turn. Unless I over accelerated. Maybe you should get better tires. I've driven just fine in snow in my cobra. Sure not as fast as I would when dry. But I can get around if I need to. I've even passed people who were sliding around with saturns and other fwd cars. It's all in how you drive.

    To say the cost debate is a moot point is to ignore the post on the article. Saying it was another $300 cost. We don't have all the facts on what it would cost. So if you want to ignore things then fine say it's moot to you. But realize it is still a valid part of the argument from other things that have been introduced. The LS does have IRS. But it has been stated in a few places that for cost considerations it would have to be made from steel for a mustang. Which would also add weight.
  17. SportscarFan

    SportscarFan New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK. I will grant that there may be some materials cost differences, but the costs that I was mostly considering were R&D, which typically is millions of dollars, amortized over the number of vehicles that it directly affects, for several years into the future.

    IRS will have those R&D costs borne by every unit of the Lincoln LS, Jag S-type, T-Bird, and future SVT offering, and any other ford-family vehicle that uses a similar setup on a similar platform in the future, like a new mercury coupe or sedan. The big point is that a big selling mustang could be in this list, also, but is not.
    The IRS system development costs will likely be amortized much sooner than the costs of developing the new panhard suspension for the live axle in the Mustang.

    Live Axle suspension development costs will be borne only by the base and GT Mustangs. It might be enough of a consideration to offset the 300$ materials and manufacturing cost increase of the IRS, if enough mustangs are sold. The more that are sold, the faster the development costs will be paid, but the IRS would have been further along that amortization schedule from day 1.
  18. Mach460

    Mach460 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ayer, MA
    Yeah, it would have been cheaper because they would have had to use steel instead of aluminum.

    That's what is being missed. Any R&D cost for IRS in the Mustang would have been borne out by the LS, the Jag S-Type and the T-Bird. It's trickle down....just like when the 4.6 came out. The R&D costs were recouped by the Lincoln MK VIII, the Mercury Grand Marquis, and Crown Vic. The modular engine was around for 5 years before it ever appeared ina Mustang. Any additional engineering would have gone into materials and manufacturing technology...i.e how to use the steel to make the lightest strongest IRS possible (which according to Hu Thai Tnag was only 300 dollars).

    Bingo. I wonder how much additional expense was cost to engineer a car meant for IRS to accept the live axle. If what has been said in another thread is true, the car was very late in development when Phil Martens came in and sai "live axle". That cause more problems and ended up costing more to rectify other problems that cropped up. The poster said it actually cost more to retrofit the live axle than if they just stayed with IRS. Wonder how much cheaper the Mustang would have been if they had just stuck with IRS.
  19. SVTdriver

    SVTdriver Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle Wa
    You seem to have made the assumption that the $300 was for aluminum not steel. And that the aluminum might have been even more expensive. How can you wonder how much cheaper when the article says it was more expensive?
  20. Mach460

    Mach460 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ayer, MA
    No...I'm assuming that the 300 dollars was for engineering the manufacturing and development of steel pieces to replace the aluminum.

    Secondly...working in construction and being a mechanical engineer...I know first hand that steel is cheaper than aluminum. The majority of cost in aluminum is from the manufacturing of the raw material. The smelting process for aluminum is very expensive and there are only a few companies where it can be done. Because the steel industires has been around for over a 100 years, and the supply of iron ore, the manufacturing and raw material cost for steel are appreciable reduced.

Share This Page