"I agree...my current Zed4 and the E46/E36 have/had IRS and I would say while it gives great precision for the rear, not to break loose while accelerating round the apex, great ride comfort as well as handling but there are some core needs for IRS to work very well.
IRS requires a very near 50-50 weight distribution because true benefits are reaped when the chassis is tuned to neutral......."
I think most of the points you present regarding IRS are, in fact, pretty much just as valid for a good live axle design too. Much, of course, depends greatly on the overall quality of engineering of either configuration, both an IRS or live axle can be done very well of very poorly, and that needs to be considered in any discussion ("my grand daddy had a '63 Corvair with IRS and its handling was evil, so I don't want any IRS in my Mustang...").
In terms of loads and chassis loading, that really is more a matter of simple proper engineering of
suspension pickup points, whether those loads are fed by the links of an IRS or live axle. Indeed, because of the need to use significantly higher spring and shock rates to control the high inertial loads, a live axle design may well have higher stresses than an IRS.
An IRS is more complex certainly, and this can be either a blessing or a curse depending on ones needs.
For those seeking greater overall handling and ride capability/quality, an IRS generally offers much greater flexibility to optimally tune a
suspension for a wide range of situations and conditions.
On the other hand, for other folks, drag racers especially, who real don't need much from a rear
suspension other than to hold still, straight and together, an IRS's greater complexity will offer no real benefit in that particular narrow realm and in essence is money wasted and just a few more things to break and worry about.
Aside from car enthusiasts, be they corner carvers, strip burners or something else, what is the best setup for the average Joe who neither knows nor cares about what's holding up the arse of his ride? I would submit that a good IRS (see aforementioned caveat about design quality) will offer a better overall ride/handling envelope/compromise. That is, for a given ride quality, an IRS will give better handling over a wider range of conditions than a comparable live axle design. Or looking at it from the other side, for a car with a given level of handling capability, an IRS will offer you a better, more compliant ride over a wider range of road conditions than a live axle.
That all said, I am sure that the live axle in the '05 will be a fine
suspension, likely a marked improvement over the current Stang and probably the most optimal for some particular segments of the Mustang market (drag racers).
But is it the best
suspension that might be hoped for, expected or wanted for the broader customer base?
That's a question with a lot of variables (cost, use, expectations, competition, etc), but I still think that overall, Ford should have consolidated its design, development, engineering and production and monetary resources into a single superior IRS design that would have best met the needs of the broadest market.
For whatever reasons, and it will be interesting to really find out the details of the '05s development, Ford has chosen to develop two rear
suspension designs. Whether this, in the long term, will be a good thing overall (greater choice for all the Mustangs customer bases) or a bad thing (dissipitated scarce resources over two designs rather than a single optimal one) will be something only time will tell.