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)
  2. Solid Rear Axle

    74 vote(s)
  1. I know that steel is cheaper than aluminum. You don't have tobe an engineer to know that. But the platform is only based on the LS. So cost could have been making the aluminum fit to the new mustang chassis.

  2. But that's my point. The cost would have been in replacing the aluminum in steel.
  3. I think your misunderstanding what I'm saying. Or maybe I'm not understanding you. Since the chassis is not the exact same as the lincoln. The cost could have been in making any suspension aluminum or steel fit in.
  4. My understanding from what I've read is that the Mustang share the same underpinnings as the LS and that major suspensions points are shared between the two. Now there are some things that are Mustang specific (MacPherson struts vs. Double wishbones up front), but that for the most part, its virtually identical.

    So my assumpiton is baed that an IRS system based on the aluminum unit used in the LS could be engineered and fabricated of steel that would easily fit into the 05 Mustang...and that most of the engineering costs would be in how to manufacture a steel unit. As opposed to completely designing an IRS for a car that was not meant for it (ie. the 99-03 Cobra). Since the chassis is already designed to use the IRS, the only costs involved would be in material and fabircation.

    Now the Cobra may get the all aluminum unit (and that's fine if it's going to be 45,000 dollars), but you can't say the Mustang can't have a steel IRS unit that's cost effective. It's all in how the costs are spread throughout a product line (or rather platform line). The IRS has already been designed for the LS the major engineering and R&D costs have already been swallowed up and paid for.
  5. I'm not having much of a problem right now.

    205/65/15 Blizzak tires - $85 per (2 on the back)
    15x7 alloys - ($30 per at the scrap yard I got them from)
    stock limited slip.

    The only weight I have in the back are my 2 summer tires/wheels, and I removed the doughnut spare. Make sure you don't let the fuel level get below half a tank and that's all the weight you'll need. That, and, don't drive like an ass.

    Mind you, my solid axle/Eibach spring combo means a first gear crawl over the ice ruts.
  6. Glad to hear that it is going well for you. I wish the miata had blizzaks, it has el-cheapo snows on el-cheapo steel wheels and hubcaps. (looks bad, but it was cheap, and I was unemployed at the time.)

    My old 88 LX Mustang was the car I drove in college (And looked quite a lot like yours, BTW. Good looking car!), and it had wider than stock all season Firestone Firehawks on it, and it was terrible, but couldn't afford or store dedicated snow tires. The Probe GT had 225/55 - r16 all season Cooper Cobras on it. it was ok, but the tires were just too wide, and would skate over most things, rather than bite in.

    The Miata on cheap snows does about as well, if not slightly better on it's narrow (195/55) snows with limited slip, and good contact patch control from the IRS. That is with NO weight (added or otherwise :D ), other than at least half a tank of gas, and someone in the driver's seat.
    I can't really fit a full sized wheel and tire, or a sandbag in the miata's trunk, and still be able to fit a birthday card in there besides.
    Downside is that it handles badly on those cheap balloons in the dry.

    The thing is, now I am going to have to get new Bridgestone Dueler AT Revos for my Ranger 4x4, then a new set of summer tires, probably Bridgestone Potenza RE750s, for the 16" summer wheels on the Miata, before I can get some 15" aluminum take-offs from a wrecker, and a set of blizzaks for the miata's winter shoes. I gues I am going to be helping supporting the tire industry for the next 18 months or so.

    Rebuttal to those who say that the Mustang shouldn't have IRS:
    I can always put better tires on the next car I buy, but if it has a design deficiency, such as a live axle, rather than a readily available IRS, I would be one to look elsewhere; even if the drag racers insist that a live axle "will do ok" on the street. I was willing to accept that on the old car, and I do mean OLD. That is a serious omission from a brand new car.

    It may be true that a live axle will be "OK", but I want what I want for the money I am going to pay. I know the difference, and many more people can tell the difference, even if they can't explain it technically. Just one test drive could tell the difference (we'll see when it is test driven)
    The people who are looking to buy a performance car know what make a performance car, and very well may know the difference between a live axle and IRS, even if they don't have the cash for a Cobra.
    Many more people with the same mindset could hurt the new Mustang a bit, and it sounds like there are several people of that opinion, even on this forum.

  7. Take a look at Bridgstone RE950's for the miata. They are an all season perf. tire that I've been running for the last 2 years (wisconsin). They aren't spectacular at any specific thing, but, they are an excellent all around tire and, so far, the treadwear is pretty good. I am still using them on the front.
  8. Fallacy #1: if a large number of people do something, it must be right. See my previous comment comparing IRS with vinyl tops and FWD.

    Besides, it's not really true that "virtually everyone" is buying IRS. The best-selling vehicle in the U.S. is the F150, and it has a live axle. Mustang is the best-selling sports car and it (mostly) has a live axle. Most passenger car models have IRS, but most models of them don't sell very well.

    Fallacy #2: nothing will ever change. (A.K.A. "we have a $100 trillion dollar a year economy but we can't afford smooth roads.") As much money as we waste on making movies based on 1970s TV shows, air travel, and trying to teach trigonometry to indifferent young males, we ought to be able to find the money for better roads.

    I live in Gulfport, MS, which does not have great roads. I also drive a great deal in New Orleans, which has some of the worst roads in the country. Believe me, we have potholes. I just think it's a myth that the straight axle can't handle bad roads.

    Indeed, every choice involves tradeoffs. I'm just not willing to sacrifice power, economy, maintainability, or durability for something as frivolous as ride quality.

    Besides, I don't think my '01 GT rides roughly or handles poorly. I do think that many people perceive the ride to be rougher than it is because of the amplification of impact that occurs when the thing being beat upon is a prized posession (as opposed to a Corolla).

    I know I will be flamed for "magazine racing," but most of the major media comparisons report relatively positive feedback about BOTH ride and handling for the '99+ Mustang GTs. Some of them make general comments about the old live axle, but specific comments about ride/handling are usually very positive. Check out the "Camaro vs. Mustang... Again" article in Car&Driver (2/99). The "highs" for the GT are "improved power, decisive steering, comfortable ride." Or, check out Road&Track's "10 Hot Cars for Under $25,000" (11/01). The Mustang wins #1 in the skidpad title. Car&Driver also mentioned the smooh ride of the Mach1 when it compared it to the 350Z, AudiTT, and RX8 (three IRS cars). And the Mach1 had the fastest lap on a racetrack in that comparison. Again, I hate to quote magazines, but they are a hell of a lot more objective than the Internet.

    That just doesn't reflect my own experience. Obviously, this is pretty personal and depends on many variables. But I've never taken a curve in my GT so fast that the front tires started to make noise. So I don't think I've ever reached, say, 90% of it's handling capability.

    See fallacy #1.

    Alternate response: can you explain to me why your couch has throw pillows? Think about it.

    IRS is probably not going away. Neither are power windows, in-car DVDs, etc. Manufacturers like to make over-accessorized, expensive cars. Thank God they can't make me buy them. I ALREADY GOT MY CAR WHILE THEY WERE STILL WORTH A DAMN :D ! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, J Mays.
  9. accesory.....oook, there are million of over accesorized cars out there then.

    I just don't understand all this hostility towards IRS. It will make the car better...what's so evil about that?

    And don't tell me cost either...because that's the biggest fallacy being thrown around here.
  10. But the biggest fallacy of all. Is that the mustang needs it.

  11. You're doesn't need it. But heck. it's doesn't need a 3 vavlve SOHC engine with VVT to make 300 hp, the Mach 1 DOHC would have done the job just as well.

    But the IRS would have made the car better.
  12. If I would have thought that I'd brought the Cobra instead. I wasn't in the new car market because I just got my 02 GT less than a year ago. But damn the looks, LE car made 2 years, the power, and the way it hooked with the solid axle compared to IRS and I was sold. :shrug:
  13. Your right it didn't need the 3 valve. But I'd rather have the aluminum block 3 valve than an iron block mach engine. Since the weight will effect more than just handling.
  14. The 03 / 04 Mach 1 engine has an aluminum block, just like a 99 - 01 Cobra does. It's the 03 / 04 SC Cobra that has the iron block.
  15. From MotorTrend.
    Providing the all-important bang in place of those oldie-but-goodie 351s and 428s is a unique version of Ford's 32-valve cast-iron block/aluminum-head 4.6L DOHC V-8. This is the same one used in the 390-hp Cobra,
    No whether it is right or wrong is up for debate. But these were the specs I found.
  16. It's got an aluminum block and always has had. These mags are part of the problem. They spread bad information and do little research.

    In fact one claimed "It's about time they put IRS" in the Mach and said how good it drove with it:lol: It still didn't change the fact in doesn't have that either.
  17. Answer me this one thing. Would IRS as stock equipment make the Mustang more expensive than it would be now that it's not?

    Don't qualify it with it'd make the car better, or it would do this or that etc because I can easily over extrapolate that. Does it make it more expensive?
    Yes or no.
    If yes why should we have to pay for something extra we don't want or why should others pay for something extra they wouldn't care either way about save for the price.
  18. To shed some light on various posts:

    Forget the notion that NECKCAR stockers run live axle because of it's handling. They run it because they are forced to run it. NASCAR not only dictates they run a live axle, they also, *heavily* dictate the geometry and components that the teams are allowed to use. They do this because:

    1. Cost. Yes, an IRS assembly would be marginaly more expensive but that would pale in comparison to the on going R&D costs (it is still racing afterall). The live axle rules have been established for a long time. The rulebook essentially designs the rear suspension for you. The same would be true if you forced the touring car series in europe to drop IRS and run live axle. The development costs would be enormous.

    2. Rules compliance. Because everyone is essentially running the same thing, for so long, the tech inspectors know what to look for. IRS would could make this process more complicated.

    3. The show. Nascar wants to promote close racing and lower costs, not technical innovation (unless it is a serious safety issue). This is the same reason they still run carbs and cast iron blocks. If the cars has EFI on them, would the people sitting in the stands be able to tell the difference? Of course not. So why would anyone care if corner speeds went up at a place like pocono or bristol or sears point?

    There is also another issue coming up in nascar these days that might relate to the live axle issue on the mustang. Nascar is looking at going to rack and pinion steering systems because the recirc. ball sytems they use now aren't used by the auto industry anymore. Rack and pinion steering is even used on trucks now. There are fewer parts bins to cannibilize recirculating ball steering parts and they are becoming more of a specialty item and, more expensive. They may have made that change by now.

    Would the reduced cost of the live axle be offset slightly be the reduced volumes associated with using it on only one car and having to maintain the additional part numbers?

    Personally, I can't see how an IRS system, in a platform that was designed with it in mind, could be much more expensive than a live axle. I look at the number of components/sub assemblies involved with a properly located Live axle and a multi link or twin A-arm IRS and I can't see much of a cost difference. If IRS adds more than $1000 to the sticker, you're getting ripped off.

    Yes a good live axle setup will handle, A good IRS will handle, and ride, better. And, you don't have to do triple digit speeds in a school zone to feel the difference. For those of you that say your current gen mustang rides and handles fine, I would ask how many current sports/GT cars other than your mustang have you driven lately? Using dad's Buick as a handling baseline doesn't count.

    If I'm going to spend between $25k-$30k on a new car, it will be good at *everything*.