An intresting article on the 05 in the Winnipeg Free Press.

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

  1. IRS....that's what I want. But hey....if the 05 does away with the dreaded Mustang Two Step and I can actually take a highway off ramp without having to do hail marys..then fine. But if the car still has all those nasty little live axle habits, then you have to ask yourself if the Mustang really made a step forward.

    Don't get me wrong, I love the car, and I'm already in line for one. But I'll be honest, there are times in my 2000 GT when I go.....why do I bother with the live rear axle and all it's clunkiness. I live in the Massachusetts, and the roads are not exactly FIA Formula 1 smooth. And having driven a BMW M3, you gotta sit and think..why can't the Mustang have this?

    I also believe that Ford is basically turning their back on a wholly new performance market for the Mustang. By focusing on that 30%, and forcing the other 70% to accept it, you turn off a whole set of possible performance enthusiasts who might have considered buying the Mustang save for it's ride and handling. I agree the smart thing to do would have been to have the base GT with the live axle (a la GTS of 95-96, a real basic Mustang), and a premium GT with the IRS for enthusiasts who do more than drag race or want a capable GT for everyday driving.
  2. I disagree with the 70% forced to accept what 30% want. Simply because 70% of mustang drivers are not road racers. You only have to look at the relatively small amount of mustang road racers. As compared to how many people drag race mustangs. And you can build the current mustang's suspension to road race. Yes it does cost more to build the live axle. But people build suspensions for better handling all the time. Even drag racers build up their suspension. Now I do think it should have been an option. But we don't have an 05 to test. So we really don't know what the difference between the new 3 link and the IRS will be.
  3. c'mon guys, we're all gearheads in here. roll up your sleeves and score yourself an IRS setup somewhere, it literally bolts right into the live-axle cars. and whoever it was that said they wished ford still made a pushrod engine...hell yeah, bro!
  4. NO you should not be in advertising. No way to you want the word race in any piece of literature or advertising. Haven't you heard of insurance and how expensive it already is on Mustangs?
  5. Is David Booth a writer for the Winnipeg Free Press?

    Much of that article is word for word what has appeared in other papers. It sounds more like an AP syndicated article.

    The important part of the article appears to be:

    but judging by back-to-back 4,000 rpm-and-dump-the-clutch escapades with the '04 model at Ford's proving grounds, the new engine is decidedly healthier, willing to spin the P235/55WR17s well into second gear while the '04 could barely manage a chirp. And despite the newfangled multi-valve head and variable valve timing, the GT still sounds like a good ol' boy's V-8.

    As far as the $300 figures goe those DO NOT sound like retail. Considering that the Mach 460 system stickers for $550 and the Mach 1000 system used to sticker for $1,295, I'd say that your 1000w Shaker audiofile system will sticker for $1,400 and if there is an IRS option it will sticker for $1,500.

  6. Oh no, I've offended the lawyer in the group.

    I don't have to hear about "how expensive it already is". I own one.

    ...and I quote,

    "Other modifications in the body-building regimen include a roll cage and race-tuned suspension that hugs..."

    "The Lexus IS 300 went on sale June 23 and, like the pace car, shows a less traditional side of Lexus which is attracting a younger, edgier crowd. Lexus is also working with TRD..."

    TRD stands for "Toyota racing development".

    Either the legal dept. was on vacation that day or these people come from a culture where every [email protected]#k up is not automatically someone elses fault. (and therefore, worth suing over)

    try this one:

    "“M” stands for Motorsport." This is the first sentence of the first paragraph.
    I defy anyone to convince me that "motorsport" is less offensive than "race".

    Insurance rates on mustangs are high because they are a relatively high powered car, bought by a lot of younger, single men. They are also a magnet for car thieves and break-in's (my '92 has been broken into twice in the last 2 years and my centercaps were stolen.) Throw in the 25 year old chassis that I'm sure any actuarial or claims adjuster will tell you offers *maybe* average occupant protection and is not particularly economical to repair. Throw in a percentage of 16 to 18 year olds who's parents have more $ than brains and buy one of these for a first car.... I'll stop right there.

    Buying a sports car and complaining about insurance is like commuting to your office job in a 1 ton truck and complaining about the price of fuel.

  7. Me personally....I couldn't ask for much more. I live in Northeast Texas. Some of the straightest flatest and most well maintained driving surfaces in the union. Hell I20 from Dallas to my parents house 30 minutes east of Dallas is like pure dream for anybody with a fast caar. It's about 8 miles of 3 lane highway that at certain times of the day is practically abandoned even in the broad daylight(just a few too many state troopers :)). But the facts are there are some that WANT to have it and I can't see any good logic in keeping something many people want that would be basically pure profit and all they have to do is just offer it.

    And I understang that I just think that's piss poor reasoning and very shortsighted on their part. Let's just work with these numbers. Say the IRS setup costs Ford 300 bucks per car. They sticker it for 1500. That's 1200 bucks profit per car. Now let's say only a paltry 15% of the folks buying a Mustang would actually pay for the IRS.
    Ford is wanting to sell what? 200k of these things annualy the first couple years?
    That's 30 thousand people.
    At 1200 bucks profit per order....
    that comes to....
    $36,000,000 a year. for $72,000,000 total profit for two years.
    You mean to tell me Ford is blind enough to give back over 70 million bucks so the Cobra will have just one more piece of exclusive equipment. To put that into sales numbers Ford would have to sell 800 extra Cobras at 45k a YEAR to match that profit. I'm sure some 80k a year bean counter at Ford must have pointed this out I just find it hard to believe somebody in a business would willfully give back that much profit and ignore numerous requests for this particular option just for exclusivity on the Cobra.
  8. I totally agree with you logic, that is Ford could make a LOT of money selling IRS as an option to the GT and maybe even the V6.

    However your #'s are off a bit. When an engineer says it cost $300 for IRS, he is probably talking about the actual manufacturing cost. Overhead, sales & marketing costs etc all have to be added to that, so instead of $72M / 2 years profit may only be around $50M. But I think at least 30% of Mustang buyers would opt for the IRS and Ford would make at least $50M / year on it. Plus with IRS the Mustang will get better car rag reviews which would further increase Mustang sales.

  9. Its funny that you mention the GM pushrod. It seems like Ford and Chevy have totally opposite tactics when dealing with their sports cars. The Vette has an old engine configuration but the suspension and chassis are fantastic for road racing with IRS and all the other handling goodies. Ford on the other hand uses an old chassis (until 05 anyway) but a more modern engine design. Granted its not really a fair comparison but its just kind of interesting that they take opposing routes.

    Anywho, I am one of the proponents of IRS. For rear world driving it is superior and that is what (according to Ford) 70 percent of the market will be doing with the car. Even my winter car (Saturn) has independent rear suspension and handles suprisingly well for a little econobox. I am sure that Ford won't lose any sales because of the live axle but I just think it makes more sense for a car that is as technologically advanced as the Mustang to have a more modern suspension.

  10. Well said. If putting $300 in means $1200 out, this discussion would be academic. The bean counters and car dealers would be tripping all over each other, begging Ford to add it as an option package.

    Has anyone considered that $1200 for IRS is a bit on the steep side? Keep in mind that IRS in the new car won't be restricted by having to fit in a 25 year old chassis. Also, adding IRS essentially means a live axle delete. Is the difference really that high?

    I hear a lot of people pointing at IRS when they talk about the high price of the cobra. Doesn't this car have a low volume, superharged, essentially and built engine? Cha-Ching!

    Maybe ford is missing the boat a bit. They could be the only auto maker to offer IRS and live axle, in Cobra, Boss, GT, whatever. That would be swell.
  11. Guys, you all seem to forget that the SVT Mustang is not likely to come in at under $45k. SVT is moving up-scale to compete with the likes of the BMW M cars. We won't be getting a 500hp engine, IRS, 6-speed manual (or 5-speed auto w/ F1-style paddle shifters), etc for the $33k we're accustomed to. That's why there will be a special edition Mustang to fill the gap, probably using an 03 Cobra motor tuned to around 400-420hp, IRS, and the T-56 (I hope). Figure around $34-$35k. This is going to be as "low-volume" as the current Cobra (though at close to 10k/year, that's still a nice chunk of Mustang sales).

    I'd love to see IRS as an option for all models, but if it happens, I think the GT will be the only one (aside from special editions and the SVT). If the V6 is getting the 7.5" rear again (I've seen reports of it having the 8.8" rear same as the GT, though), then we sure won't be seeing IRS as an option on the V6. I'd expect it to be around $1000 as an option.
  12. Exactly. The Mustang is a niche car to begin make it even more niche by placating only 30% of the potential market is really kind of bad business. I mean let's assume that the remaining 70% does absolutely no racing or whatever. In terms of real world driving, why will most people buy a 25,000 dollar GT when the possibility exist that they can get an import for the same price that handles better and has a better feel in the real world.

    Not to speak of the enthusiasts (not the drag racers or road racers), those who enjoy high performance cars-the people who read Road and Track, Motor Trend, or Car and Driver (the non-traditional Mustang market). I can already picture the comparison tests they'll run against the likes of the 350Z's. They're going to jump all over the fact that the Mustang has a live axle and how that affects handling.

    Now...this all of speculation and assumptions on our part. My hope is that Ford did work wonders. But it does disturb a bit that Ford listened so hard to just a small segment of Mustang enthusiasts (these are the same guys who feel Ford should have stuck with pushrod engines).

    Like its been said, the Mustang has one of the most high tech and advanced engines in the automotive world (and definitely in the American market). That image should extend throughout the whole car.

  13. But why should I have to pay 40 to 50K to have a car with IRS, when I can pay under 30K and have a 350Z that has the same performance level as a Mustang and probably handles better. Let's face it...even it is 50,000 dollars, a Cobra is still just a gussied up Mustang with expensive hardware.
  14. Think about this: put the new car on the market for a year or two and watch it's popularity shove sales through the roof. Then, improve upon it a little (add a supercharger, or IRS, or whatever--something that's already been engineered no less) and watch sales go through the roof again. Now that's my kind of marketing! And I don't have an MBA.
  15. I really don't want to hear any crap about how expensive IRS is. A freak'in $15,000 Focus has IRS (yea I know its FWD). There is no way in the world anyone should have to pay $40K for a SVT Mustang in order to get IRS.

    If the solid axle was allegedly put back into the 2005 Mustang because of a vocal minority of Mustang draggers, I say we start writing & e-mailing Ford Motor demanding a reasonably priced IRS option for both the V6 & V8.

    In Car & Driver they quote Phil Martens - Group VP of Product Creation - as taking credit for making the decision to put the solid axle back in the 2005. (Originally it was going to have IRS).

    So I suggest that we start writing Bill Clay Ford Jr. and Phil Martins telling them We want our IRS! After all Mustangs racing heritage was first built on road racing tracks in SCCA competition with the Shelby GT-350's and in the Trans-Am with the Boss 302s.
  16. Well get cracking you might convince them by the time 06 comes around.
  17. wasn't until the Fox Mustang came around that the Mustang really earned it's reputation as a drag racer (the 428 CJ notwithstanding)