5.0 is Confirmed

[Ronstang]

Actually that's backwards. It's the shitty bushings that allow everything to flex (sub frame, control arms, differential, all moving different directions) and street tires lack of traction that cause IRS failures.

Slicks or sticky drag radials actually help reduce wheel hop. Once the hop is elimination, sure, you'll snap axles and grenade differentials in a high horsepower car just as well as a solid axle can.

I must have remembered it backwards then. I don't mess with the newer Mustangs anymore, I leave that to my friends, so my experience here is second hand.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I love how everyday enthusiasts that want a 400hp street car get LA so that ten guys can build 1000hp drag cars out of them.

 

[BenSkywalker]

So, to sum up your post in one sentence. In your opinion, the new Ford Mustang GT should not get an IRS because if it did, it wouldn't be able to run 6 second 1/4's. That's brilliant.

Finally got the response I was looking for, took more coaxing then I thought it would

So we have a bunch of criticism about the LA in the Mustang because under certain particular extreme examples it becomes a hinderance to the car which the overwhelming majority of people will never come close to approaching, and this is OK.

However, the opposite situation is also true. Under extreme settings LA does have a clear advantage over IRS for performance purposes- and what's more- it is an extreme situation in which the Mustang has long been known to partake in at the highest levels. Go to a local rally event and check the percentage of Stangs you see there, try the same at the drag strip.

Personally I'd like to see the V6 with track pack come with IRS, but I live in an area that has horrific frost heaves and I like to drive on those roads quickly. What percentage of Mustang drivers is that? I would wager lower then those that take it to the drag strip.

 

[Pariah]

I don't see driving around a corner a bit faster than you should be and hitting a pothole or some other road imperfection that unsettles the car as an extreme case, or anywhere even remotely as rare as someone trying to make a 6 sec drag racer. There is a reason why no one else is using a LA in their higher performance vehicles; it's not the better configuration, and I bet the reason Ford has kept it has absolutely nothing to do with drag racing performance.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I don't see driving around a corner a bit faster than you should be

It sounds like you are the ideal candidate for a Prius, why partake in a performance car discussion?

and hitting a pothole or some other road imperfection that unsettles the car as an extreme case

Hitting one big enough to make the current Stang's LA step out seems to be a rather extreme case. How many miles have you drive one btw? Or are you giving arm chair analysis?

 

[Pariah]

I'm sure you have driving skills like Michael Shumacher. Believe it or not, not everyone does. You don't have to be barreling around a track at 120+ to see the benefits, that was the only point, though you insist on taking every argument to the extreme.

I have not driven the 2010 Mustang, nor do I have any interest in buying one. So I don't really care what suspension it has. There are no real world performance benefits to having a LA besides cost which is why pratically no performance street cars have them (do any? You never answered the question before). Yet you continue to ignore that point, and choose to personally attack me instead because there is no other option if you want to drag the argument out.

 

[ElFenix]

This inevitably ends up in a war of words.

But there are two points that seems to be constantly ignored and are really not debatable.

1. The current LA is MORE expensive than the IRS would have been.

given how ford seems to not be very good at estimating costs (the current LA and current focus both cost way more to design than had been estimated), i'm not sure how you can assign much reliability to ford's initial IRS expense estimate.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I'm sure you have driving skills like Michael Shumacher.

That wasn't the implication at all, in fact I would wager Shu could drive the exact same roads with a LA and not have any issues as he would be able to avoid the heaves altogether.

You don't have to be barreling around a track at 120+ to see the benefits

You speaking as someone who has never driven one, although those that have and review cars for a living don't agree with you.

I use extremes because the reality of the situation is that under typical driving if you are using a LA or IRS is not going to be noticeable figuring for equal engineering goals.

There are no real world performance benefits to having a LA besides cost which is why pratically no performance street cars have them

Do you want real world or performance? There isn't any legit real world benefit to having 400hp, but there is from a performance metric. This is why I made the Prius comment, your posts seem to indicate that you think that everyone should drive very slow and cautiously at all times, which is a more reasoned line of thought then I have to be sure. Then you add comments about performance that don't factor in with that so I'm not quite sure where you are trying to go with your line of thought.

Mine is fairly straightforward- LA is better for drag racing all else equal(although only truly evident at the extremes)

IRS is better for cornering all else equal(although only truly evident at the extremes)

The Mustang is a very popular car for drag racing. The Mustang is not a very popular car for road/auto cross racing.

Yet you continue to ignore that point, and choose to personally attack me

You consider it an attack that I imply that you are more mature and well reasoned then those that would buy a Mustang? Seriously?

 

[LTC8K6]

I've read several more reviews of the 2010 Mustang GT. All seem to agree that the revised suspension is nearly perfect in the twisty stuff.

Ford didn't use an IRS because the Mustang's LA is excellent, imo.

 

[ayabe]

"Compared to the outgoing model, great strides were made. There’s still some of the telltale axle hop inherent to a solid rear axle, but Ford has done an admirable job of working with a tried and true platform. You’ll find more handling precision elsewhere, but the gap between the muscular Mustang and more dedicated handlers like the RX-8 and 370Z has shrunk considerably."

http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-mustang-gt-review.html

Better, but not gone completely.

 

[LTC8K6]

So it seems folks need to drive a new Mustang before condemning it's lack of an IRS...

 

[Pariah]

Sorry, I was unaware you intended the Prius comment to be a compliment. They did mostly everything else right with the new one, more power and less weight, in the pursuit of better performance I would guess, and then they choose to stick with that suspension. Just seems out of place. Anyway, if Ford has gotten it right this time, good for them. Maybe they know something everyone else in the industry doesn't.

All seem to agree that the revised suspension is nearly perfect in the twisty stuff.

"In the narrow streets of East Providence, I took a turn on Cypress Street at an alleged 65 miles per hour. As my rear wheel hit a manhole—not even a pothole—I felt it. The car axle-hopped. The wheels spun uselessly in the air for a fraction of a second, wasting all of the power produced by the engine. I’m used to it, mind you, and I just held my course until the landing. Just like my 2002 Mustang. Live rear axle and all. Seven years later, and they still haven’t fixed that?"

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/capsule-review-2010-ford-mustang-gt/

 

[LTC8K6]

Sorry, I was unaware you intended the Prius comment to be a compliment. They did mostly everything else right with the new one, more power and less weight, in the pursuit of better performance I would guess, and then they choose to stick with that suspension. Just seems out of place. Anyway, if Ford has gotten it right this time, good for them. Maybe they know something everyone else in the industry doesn't.



"In the narrow streets of East Providence, I took a turn on Cypress Street at an alleged 65 miles per hour. As my rear wheel hit a manhole—not even a pothole—I felt it. The car axle-hopped. The wheels spun uselessly in the air for a fraction of a second, wasting all of the power produced by the engine. I’m used to it, mind you, and I just held my course until the landing. Just like my 2002 Mustang. Live rear axle and all. Seven years later, and they still haven’t fixed that?"

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/capsule-review-2010-ford-mustang-gt/

That seems to be an outlier so far. Also can't tell if he has the track pack. And who is taking city street turns at 65mph anyway? And how did "the wheels" spin uselessly anyway? I'll take that review with a grain of salt.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010-ford-mustang-gt-review/

The Bullitt made great strides in addressing the standard car’s handling issues. The 2010 Mustang GT crosses the finish line. More bracing, tighter spring rates, more damping, thicker sway bars and greatly improved aerodynamics work together to create the first Mustang in memory that thrives in the twisty stuff.
...
I took the GT up and over some of the most challenging, technical canyon roads Southern California has to offer. The new ‘Stang excelled. I could go hard into essentially every corner and confidently blast my way out (some of the uber tight, near-180 degree guys require a soft entry). Like wow, man — a Mustang that’s actually confidence inspiring on windy roads. The steering is a bit over-boosted and the 19” wheels could use souped up tires, but I’m splitting hairs. Finally we have a Mustang that handles the way every 14-year-old assumes it does.

 

[Q]

Why are you telling me your driving history? It isn't relevant, and I don't care.

^_^

 

[casiotech wants a new accord]

i was wondering how ford was going to compete with it's crappy 1999 190HP engine and $21,000 price tag against Camaro and Challenger.

I imagine the price of both those cars will be an addition $3-5,000 MSRP. There is no way to keep the price down.

 

[Arkaign]

i was wondering how ford was going to compete with it's crappy 1999 190HP engine and $21,000 price tag against Camaro and Challenger.

I imagine the price of both those cars will be an addition $3-5,000 MSRP. There is no way to keep the price down.

The outgoing V6 model is actually 210hp/240tq. Not great, but not totally terrible.

Official base price for the 2011 3.7L V6 is $21,455, which is pretty awesome. No word on the 5.0L price, but considering the V6 price isn't moving up much at all, I'd expect it to stay close.

Challenger is just a terrible car in the segment, waaaay too heavy. Camaro is nice, but it's looking like the '11 Mustangs will be the easy choice. Lighter, stronger, faster.

 

[casiotech wants a new accord]

yeah no kidding.

I only wish they hadn't revised the shape until 2011..

what about reliability on the Camaro vs. Mustang.

As I can recall Mustangs always owned Camaros in stock form but I could be mistaken.

Either way I'm happy ford stepped up, as their mustangs and GTs were relative under performers these past few years.

 

[Arkaign]

yeah no kidding.

I only wish they hadn't revised the shape until 2011..

what about reliability on the Camaro vs. Mustang.

As I can recall Mustangs always owned Camaros in stock form but I could be mistaken.

Either way I'm happy ford stepped up, as their mustangs and GTs were relative under performers these past few years.

The '90s Camaros were really competitive with Mustangs, neither was all that fast stock, particularly the V6 models.

Reliability should be pretty good on both. Safety, reliability, and performance have really leaped forward for Ford and GM in the past decade.

I don't imagine GM will take this sitting still though. If sales drop precipitously for the Camaro, I think the odds are they will put some bigger power, although I'd prefer (this is much less likely short of a redesign) a weight drop.

 

[casiotech wants a new accord]

Now that the 2011 specs have been released

who will buy a 2010 over the next few months knowing the redesign is such a huge leap.. and right around the corner. What kind of discounts will people expect on '10s when the 2011 is so much more beastly? If anyone just bought a 2010 a few months ago.. I pity them..

I'd buy a NEW 2010 mustang on clearance, if I could get it for $15,000 or something.

 

[TehMac]

The '90s Camaros were really competitive with Mustangs, neither was all that fast stock, particularly the V6 models.

Reliability should be pretty good on both. Safety, reliability, and performance have really leaped forward for Ford and GM in the past decade.

I don't imagine GM will take this sitting still though. If sales drop precipitously for the Camaro, I think the odds are they will put some bigger power, although I'd prefer (this is much less likely short of a redesign) a weight drop.

All the new muscle cars look like f*cking boats and feel as much. Whatever happened to making a nimble car with lots of power?

I guess that died when idiots in detroit felt entitled to fixed wages--look where that got them.

 

[casiotech wants a new accord]

i think you may want a 370z

 

[Arkaign]

Now that the 2011 specs have been released

who will buy a 2010 over the next few months knowing the redesign is such a huge leap.. and right around the corner. What kind of discounts will people expect on '10s when the 2011 is so much more beastly? If anyone just bought a 2010 a few months ago.. I pity them..

I'd buy a NEW 2010 mustang on clearance, if I could get it for $15,000 or something.

I think the '10s will go out with some awesome closeouts when the new gens roll in

All the new muscle cars look like f*cking boats and feel as much. Whatever happened to making a nimble car with lots of power?

I guess that died when idiots in detroit felt entitled to fixed wages--look where that got them.

Eh, the 2010 Mustang GT (the '11 may actually come out lighter) is ~3400lbs

by comparison the 2010 370Z is 3314lbs. Less than 100lbs different.

M3 Coupe is 3700lbs
RX-8 is 3111lbs
Jaguar XK Coupe is 3650lbs

Mustang is not a fat pig, it's just the way cars are built these days for the most part.

Camaro and Challenger are pretty portly though (particularly the Challenger).

Wages aren't the problem with US autoworkers, as the import makers don't have a problem using US labor. It's the health care and legacy costs that drive things through the roof.

 

[TehMac]

I think the '10s will go out with some awesome closeouts when the new gens roll in



Eh, the 2010 Mustang GT (the '11 may actually come out lighter) is ~3400lbs

Are you sure? I recall reading the '10 is 3500-3700 lbs.

 

[Arkaign]

Are you sure? I recall reading the '10 is 3500-3700 lbs.

I'm certain. You can pull the specs from a variety of sites (I usually get them from Edmunds due to the ease of finding them).

You may be confusing it with the Camaro, which is 3780lbs for the V6 version, and 3860 for the V8.

The '10 Mustang GT V8 is indeed 3400lbs, with the V6 weighing approximately the same (I think the old 4.0 V6 was pretty heavy, and the 4.6L was pretty light for a DOHC motor).

The Challenger is just inexcusable though, with the 250hp V6 weighing over 3700lbs, and the 6.1L V8 version over 4100lbs (puke).