Is IRS a dealbreaker?

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by LJorges, Jul 9, 2004.

  1. On my 1999 Cobra, I found that I didn't have to be accelerating all that hard, if the pavement was at all wet. Very annoying, something I don't miss at all. Granted, the 1999 Cobra did not have a stellar example of IRS.

  3. I must admit that I was disappointed at first not seeing IRS. But after studying the new suspension design, I'm convinced it's head and shoulders better than the old. In fact, I think if you could retrofit that suspension to a current sn95 car, you would see a big difference.

    True, but the '05 has some things those cars did not: 6"longer wheelbase, revised chassis/front suspension geometry, etc. IMO, the sum of the complete list of changes in the '05 are far more significant than just the addition of IRS.
  4. They could've went either way IMO. The most important part is they threw away the old design and went with a totally new setup. I do more straight line racing than racing in the twisties so 6 out of 10 times I'd forgo the IRS. However on the few occasions that I'll be autocrossing or taking a sweeper at a high rate of speed I'd prefer an IRS. Ford can't satisfy everyone and there's going to be a lot more mustangs at the drag strip than SCCA events.
  5. I know it may be hard to put into words but what would you consider acceptable? Would it be relative to your old mustang or to cars in its price range?

  6. I know that the '05 Stang is going to handle much better than my 2001. The improved front suspension geometry, much better F/R weight balance, wider track, proper rear suspension that won't have binding upper links and stiffer unibody structure tells us that the 05 will be much better. Handling is not the issue.

    The make or break item for me will be how the '05 stang holds its composure in hard cornering over bumpy roads and just how comfortable and composed it will be over bumpy roads in normal driving.

    It will have to be vastly superior to my 2001 GT. It will also have to be at least as well behaived a 350Z / G35 which it better be since the Nissian FX platform has some stability issues.

    I may very well end up happy with a live axle 05 GT, but as someone else posted "How can we say one way or the other, until we've driven it?"
  7. What about an aluminum rear end housing?

    I'm curious why Ford didn't consider casting the rear end housing out of aluminum. One of the killers with the live axle is un-sprung mass. Since the rear end is a new casting(with the center upper control arm mount), it seems like it would have been a great opportunity to lose a few more pounds in a good place.

    Anyone know why?

    I'm not really worried - I think the GT will be leaps and bounds ahead of the old car even with a solid axle. I would be concerned if they decided against IRS in the SVT Mustang since I'll be wanting one of those eventually...
  8. My guess would be price. Aluminum is significantly more expensive than iron. Even in bulk it's something like 3 times the price.
  9. Cost and fatigue strength. I would guess that the 3rd member in a live axle setup takes a lot more abuse than in an independent setup, especially in a car as heavy as the mustang. It does, after all, have the drive shaft housings pressed into it.
  10. This is why I wish for a huge option list. Because to me GPS navigation and climate control have no place on a mustang. I can read a map and turn the A/C on and off just fine by myself. I would love to see a stripped down option package with roll up windows manual door locks and an am/fm radio. I looked for a long time to find a fox GT with out any power accesories it took a while , but I finally found one. I know I am in the minority here and most people want more luxury. I am just one of the few that could care less how well the car rides. The less electronic gadgets the better. I just want it to throw me back in the seat and go extremely fast in a straight line. That is my idea of a Mustang, a raw pure american muscle car.
  11. Your second paragragh has been my contention all along.
  12. I agree. Also aluminum and steel have much different expansion rates with temperature. Aluminum expands much more than steel, meaning that your pressed in axle shaft housings could fall out in hot weather, or when the rear end heats up during a long trip.
  13. I'm sure glad that most of the world doen't think like you do, because if they did, indoor plumbing would have never caught on and we'd still have to go out back to the outhouse to take a crap. :rlaugh:
  14. Personally I am glad it doesn't have navigation. Navigation is a cool technology. But to me it just promotes dumber drivers. But that's just my problem with some technology. I figure out how to get where I am going before I leave. Rather than realy on something telling me where to go.
  15. Hey now don't knock my outhouse! Seriously though I just feel that they pack too many gadgets in cars that make us lazy such as climate control if you are cold turn the air off if your hot turn the heat down. It also makes us dumber, no need to learn to read a map the computer will tell you where to go. Want to know how many miles a gallon you are getting? Heck no need to bring anything as complicated as math into it just look at your multifunction message center. I am not against improvements I just think alot of features on cars now days are pointless.
  16. Don't knock navigation systems until you've had one. Reading a map is no big deal if you want to get from NY to Chicago. The problem starts when you are in the middle of Chicago during rush hour traffic and you have to get to 1152 commerce st and this is the first time you have ever been in Chicago. Attempting to read a map while driving in Chicago is a danger to you any everyone around you. The nav system makes it simple, especially if it is a voice activated and voice feeback system so you don't have to take your eyes off the road. After getting a nav system in my Lincoln LS, I may never buy a car again if I can't get a nav system in it.

    As far as climate control goes, it is 2004, not 1954. It's down right stupid to not have climate control in any car. Are you ready to remove the thermostat from your house? Is it that big a deal when it gets too cold to go down to the furnace and flip a swith on to warm it up. Then when it gets too hot go back and flip it off? Sounds pretty stupid to me, especially when climate control adds virtually no weight to a car over manual controls.

    Ford is falling seriously behind its competition in offering modern creature comforts. Someone I know bought a dinky little Pontiac Vibe that has a nav system in it. Time for Ford to get with the program.
  17. As long as it is an option fine. For those who can't stop to ask directions ok.
    But as far as competitors to the mustang that people have mentioned (Corvette, GTO, EVO, and STI) all do not have navigation as options. So they are not all that far behind on offering navigation.
  18. I think it would be nice to see nav as an option. Ever since a buddy of mine picked up a new Mazda3 with the nav system (even though it sucks compared to other systems) ... I see how it would be really handy sometimes. Even if you know where you're going, it's kinda cool to know at a glance how many miles are left, etc. Now all we need is nav systems that are connected online so they can get traffic updates and route around them :D.

    Personally I'll just get the pioneer in-dash nav system if I decide I must have one. But I would be interested to see Ford make it an option.

  19. Hey Dave are you coming up here for the Belevue show next weekend. I have been told the 05 will be there.
  20. Oh really??? How good is your information? :D If the '05 is going to be there, I'll be there. It's not too bad a drive...