The real reason the Mustang has a solid rear axle

[darkswordsman17]

LOL @ Live Axle.

Hey America, 1984 called, they want their technology back.

*Looks at location*

Er...

This "tech/spec war" is just BS.

Something I don't understand though, is why they always point to American cars like the Vette and Mustang. The M3 and 911 use MacPherson struts, but that never gets brought up.

Fact is, a well tuned and properly setup suspension matters more than the tech that it uses. Its why TVRs were nightmares despite having what should be good suspensions. Of course, starting with a good components/design helps with tuning and setup.

 

[Fenixgoon]

*Looks at location*

Er...

This "tech/spec war" is just BS.

Something I don't understand though, is why they always point to American cars like the Vette and Mustang. The M3 and 911 use MacPherson struts, but that never gets brought up.

Fact is, a well tuned and properly setup suspension matters more than the tech that it uses. Its why TVRs were nightmares despite having what should be good suspensions. Of course, starting with a good components/design helps with tuning and setup.

don't feed the trolls! D:

 

[Bignate603]

In the end you need to just look at the performance of the car. You can have a car that has all the latest and greatest tech in it but if it is not well designed it will be terrible. On the other hand, you can have a car that has older tech but is well designed that performs extremely well.

Who cares how they get there, if the final product is good it doesn't matter.

 

[DivideBYZero]

*Looks at location*

Er...

This "tech/spec war" is just BS.

Something I don't understand though, is why they always point to American cars like the Vette and Mustang. The M3 and 911 use MacPherson struts, but that never gets brought up.

Fact is, a well tuned and properly setup suspension matters more than the tech that it uses. Its why TVRs were nightmares despite having what should be good suspensions. Of course, starting with a good components/design helps with tuning and setup.

Do they use them on the back wheels...? :sneaky:

 

[exdeath]

Shit the Sti has a strut suspension at all 4 corners and look how well it does!

 

[punjabiplaya]

http://www.insideline.com/ford/mustang/2012/2012-ford-mustang-boss-302-first-drive-and-video.html

 

[exdeath]

American cars can't turn.

http://www.streetfire.net/video/a-525rwhp-03-cobra-that-can-also-turn-a-corner_79233.htm

 

[punjabiplaya]

American cars can't turn.

http://www.streetfire.net/video/a-525rwhp-03-cobra-that-can-also-turn-a-corner_79233.htm

haha, Eric Bana will have to argue with you about that one...

 

[Throckmorton]

I hate struts out of principle, but this thread is about the Mustang solid axle, not the M3, STI, 911, and 240sx.

 

[darkswordsman17]

A lot of people argue about things that don't actually matter (to the driver). I suppose it's just human nature.

What doesn't matter? Weight, drag coefficient, gearing, power, torque, chassis material, window glass thickness, brake size, brake material, OEM tire size, wheel weight, wheelbase, bore/stroke ratio, rod/stroke ratio, track width, suspension type, etc.

What does matter? External dimensions, straight-line acceleration (and numbers), lap times, braking numbers (both instant and repeated), top speed, interior dB, comfort, gas mileage, driveability, fun factor, aesthetics, interior/cargo space, etc.

If you disagree, answer me this: would you reduce the weight of the vehicle by 100lbs at a cost of decreasing gas mileage by 2mpg?

I agree, but, generally those things are directly tied to things that a driver would care about. I'm definitely of the opinion that its the end result, but often it helps to understand why you got those results.

I hate struts out of principle, but this thread is about the Mustang solid axle, not the M3, STI, 911, and 240sx.

Fair enough, and I think many people are missing the point (which even though I agree with their point, that its the end result and doesn't matter that much how it is achieved). This line sums it up:

And there’s the rub: Good as it is, the 2010 Mustang could have been better.

Plus, when taking this into account:

Now here’s the punchline: My well-placed sources say that once the noise, vibration and harshness, and driveline angle issues were solved, the S197′s live rear axle actually ended up costing Ford $98 per unit MORE than the low cost independent rear end originally developed for the car.

The point being is that, the bean counters won (really $100 per car for something that would have a big impact?), and it ended up being a loss. If it weren't for the fact that the engineers/development teams were so good, but that's what makes it so much more disappointing. Think what they could have done with IRS. We might be talking about how the Mustang beat the M3, not just got close to it.

One last thing. I thought it was well known that was the reason it had a solid rear axle? I know I've seen that reported before.

 

[exdeath]

Got close to it? The 11 Mustang GT ties or beats the M3, and now the Boss 302 will humiliate it... still on struts and a live axle. The only thing anyone can complain about is that it won't have a BMW logo it.

Hate struts on principal? Seriously? WTF its that supposed to mean? Some of the most respected corner carvers on the road use struts, you going to get your pantries in a wad because every car isn't QOHC direct injected multi thousand dollar SLA front and rear suspension, magnetotechnowhirlyplasma titaniumbuzzwordthingamadoohickey thats the hottest buzzword of some ignorant snobby import car mag, regardless of performance, just because you want to say you have it?

That's pretty much the definition of car snob.

 

[exdeath]

PS google Griggs GR40 and see what an ass whoopin an "ancient ox cart axle" can dish out.

 

[Arkaign]

Got close to it? The 11 Mustang GT ties or beats the M3, and now the Boss 302 will humiliate it... still on struts and a live axle. The only thing anyone can complain about is that it won't have a BMW logo it.

Hate struts on principal? Seriously? WTF its that supposed to mean? Some of the most respected corner carvers on the road use struts, you going to get your pantries in a wad because every car isn't QOHC direct injected multi thousand dollar SLA front and rear suspension, magnetotechnowhirlyplasma titaniumbuzzwordthingamadoohickey thats the hottest buzzword of some ignorant snobby import car mag, regardless of performance, just because you want to say you have it?

That's pretty much the definition of car snob.

No kidding. For someone that wants a buttload of tech and the associated problems and expenses, look no further than Mercedes and Audi. On top gear the higher-powered and much more complicated AWD RS5 got humuliated around the DAMP track by the much simpler M3.

 

[exdeath]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzpDOFOvdek

And that's a 30 year old SN95 chassis, not even the improved S197 we are arguing about. And a convertible even, worst of the worst. (This is a 98 Cobra with a solid axle). This shit is state of the art in suspension, I don't care what acronyms you want to moan about.

 

[exdeath]

Man those shitty archaic ox cart axles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPC899mdkF8

 

[Pariah]

Got close to it? The 11 Mustang GT ties or beats the M3, and now the Boss 302 will humiliate it... still on struts and a live axle. The only thing anyone can complain about is that it won't have a BMW logo it.

I take it you've never sat in or driven a current generation M3 with an asinine comment like that. If the absolute only thing you care about is track time vs cost, you might have a point, the Mustang would definitely be the better performance value. However, anyone buying a car based only on that set of criteria wouldn't be considering an M3 to begin with. Which would render the only condition your point would be true an irrelevant never going to happen scenario.

 

[exdeath]

I take it you've never sat in or driven a current generation M3 with an asinine comment like that. If the absolute only thing you care about is track time vs cost, you might have a point, the Mustang would definitely be the better performance value. However, anyone buying a car based only on that set of criteria wouldn't be considering an M3 to begin with. Which would render the only condition your point would be true an irrelevant never going to happen scenario.

So we are comparing plastic dashes and leather seat covers to solid axles now? This forum never ceases to amaze me.

What was "asinine" about my comment? Nowhere did I say it was more comfortable, had a better interior or more gizmos, better luxury, better attention to detail, or a better car in every single category. I said it equals or out performs it, which is the truth. Only two things are irrelevant here: the M3 giving you head while you drive is irrelevant to the discussion of equal performance with different suspension setups between these cars, and your seemingly deep left field butthurt response that has nothing to do with this suspension performance debate.

Maybe the part I said about the only thing people will have left to complain about is that it doesn't have a BMW logo? Well it's true, all anyone can find to bitch about on the '11 Mustang is the solid axle. I promise you if it got an IRS in 2012, those people still wouldn't be happy and still wouldn't buy one. For lack of anything else to nit pick, all the current naysayers will be able to say is "well... uh... it's still a Mustang" translated as "there is nothing wrong with this car except that it doesn't have a 'look at me' badge"

That's how it is in the US. I know someone who is one of those upper class wanna be snob types who doesn't care about the merits of a car, just the name. She was bitter and pissed off that our Avalon was better than her Lexus in every way, but instead of just trading her car for an Avalon she HAD to have that Lexus emblem. She tried to talk us into getting a Neon or something instead, god was she bitter when we got the Avalon. More horsepower, roomier interior, more doodads, quieter, everything. And she couldn't have one, only because of the self imposed exile from "oh ma gawd... a... common Toyota.." and chose to be a sour bitter old fart in her shitty Lexus.

We don't talk to these people anymore, but I know they probably went out and bought the first new Lexus that came out that was equal or better than the Avalon.

Moral of this side story? Point being that all the people who complain about things like solid axles don't care about the merits of the vehicle, they are only trying to nit pick things they don't understand as cover for what is usually a deep rooted badge snobbery. Again, I guarantee you if the 2012 Mustang had a IRS and a interior and ride that blew away any BMW and cost the same or less, people bitching about the solid axle now will still say "oh well it's still just a Mustang, it costs less than my BMW so it still must be shit somewhere" and these won't even be people that own M3s, but a 128i.

PS: I want a E46 M3 to share garage space with my 03 Cobra.

 

[Throckmorton]

Got close to it? The 11 Mustang GT ties or beats the M3, and now the Boss 302 will humiliate it... still on struts and a live axle. The only thing anyone can complain about is that it won't have a BMW logo it.

Hate struts on principal? Seriously? WTF its that supposed to mean? Some of the most respected corner carvers on the road use struts, you going to get your pantries in a wad because every car isn't QOHC direct injected multi thousand dollar SLA front and rear suspension, magnetotechnowhirlyplasma titaniumbuzzwordthingamadoohickey thats the hottest buzzword of some ignorant snobby import car mag, regardless of performance, just because you want to say you have it?

That's pretty much the definition of car snob.

A strut is a compromise in the direction of manufacturing cost. It has inherent stiction since it's effectively using a beefed up shock absorber as a suspension member. Wishbones and multilinks are beautiful in their function-- no conflict between functions, and mathematically simple arcs. You can also get set up wishbones for much more camber gain during body roll. Engineers can make the struts perform well, but it's an inherently inferior technology. They could just as easily put that effort into wishbones.

You seem to revel in inferior technology and regard wanting better parts with marginally higher costs as snobbery. My $3200 1996 Miata had wishbones and it's hardly a snobby car. Until the early 2000s even the lowly Honda Civic had wishbones all around.

All of the Mustang's competitors, from the 370Z to the Challenger, has wishbones and multilinks, not struts.

Why does the M3 have struts? I have no idea. Maybe it saves enough cost per 3 series that it's worth it for BMW to make the compromise. The Porsche 911 has them because they allow for more trunk space.

Have you considered that maybe YOU are a car snob because you want RWD? Why isn't a Focus good enough for you? Like I said, engineers these days do amazing things with FWD!! Imagine how much cheaper a FWD Mustang would be. And most drivers wouldn't notice the difference.

 

[exdeath]

A strut is a compromise in the direction of manufacturing cost. It has inherent stiction since it's effectively using a beefed up shock absorber as a suspension member. Wishbones and multilinks are beautiful in their function-- no conflict between functions, and mathematically simple arcs.

You seem to revel in inferior technology and regard wanting better parts with marginally higher costs as snobbery. My $3200 1996 Miata had wishbones and it's hardly a snobby car. Until the early 2000s even the lowly Honda Civic even had wishbones all around.

Many strut based cars outperform your Miata.

My dad's 1958 Chevy has a upper/lower wishbone front suspension, does it mean anything? No.

You do know struts are sometimes prefered for their ease of quick camber/caster adjustments on the track on the fly? Try that with a double wishbone setup. If the suspension is setup and dialed in for a particular track, it's going to perform better than a geometrically superior but not adaptable solution.

I just don't know why you are hung up on "x for the sake of x" and arguing technical and engineering semantics about something even if it's not needed for a certain performance goal or if "y" outperforms it. This is the same tired argument as the LS series engine using pushrods and not having 1303483784 valves per cylinder and doesn't rev to 25,000 RPM even though it still makes more power and torque in a smaller lighter package and 1/10th the cost.

I revel in inferior technology? I have a fuel injected 281 cubic inch engine that makes over 600 HP to the wheels and my car has an IRS, but you know what, it doesn't fucking matter as long as it does what I want it to do....

 

[exdeath]

All of the Mustang's competitors, from the 370Z to the Challenger, has wishbones and multilinks, not struts, yet the 2011 Mustang still outperforms all of them. So where is the advantage of wishbones and multilinks other than to have more dazzle phrases on the brochure to show my friends and feel like I'm car smart?

Why does the M3 have struts? Because they work and doesn't negatively impact it's performance in any way and it's one of the best street riding and track handling cars around. The Porsche 911 has them because they allow for more trunk space and because they work and don't negatively impact it's performance in any way and it's still one of the best street riding and track handling cars around.

:thumbsup:

Have you considered that maybe YOU are a car snob because you want RWD? Why isn't a Focus good enough for you? Like I said, engineers these days do amazing things with FWD!! Imagine how much cheaper a FWD Mustang would be. And most drivers wouldn't notice the difference.

Well for starters, you can't get 500+ RWHP out of a Focus for $1k in mods. If I was looking for a compact 4 cyl type car it would need to be something like a SRT-4.

I have both RWD and FWD cars, and the only thing keeping my FWD car from having 400 WHP is that it's hard to commit to putting $10,000 into a $1000 car that will still be slower than my other cars when I could put that into my other cars and make them even better.

Also if you didn't get the memo, all this time I've been arguing with you that IRS doesn't matter, all my cars including the FWD ones and the Cobra, are IRS, so you can forget about the "must be a redneck reveling in old technology" angle. Shit my Camry has a multilink IRS (3 control arms on each side) and struts at all 4 corners, what now? Do those like... cancel each other out? Or damn dude since I have more multilinks than struts it means the multilinks win and that means my old 95 Camry can blow away a 2012 Boss 302 and it's ox cart truck axle.

Yes, SLA (short long arm, aka double wishbone) is "mathematically superior", but to insist that every car should have it for the sake of having it to be "mathematically superior" or "up to date" when it doesn't impact performance at all is either being or techno phrase regurgitating car snob or just a case of Aspergers.

McPherson struts are the "newer" and "more up to date" technology than double wishbones if all that matters to you is "having the latest and newest". Double wishbones were used on almost every American car in the 1950s.

What a sec... almost all trucks have double wishbone front suspensions... does that mean F150s and Silverado's can rape exotic face on the track and ride smoother on the street because of them thar sophisticated wishbone thingamajiggers, or does that mean the 370z and Challenger both use outdated and inferior truck suspensions? I'm completely confused now.

 

[exdeath]

LOL @ Live Axle.

Hey America, 1984 called, they want their technology back.

LOL @ wishbones.

Hey Australia, 1950 called, they want their technology back.

Wait.. wut?

 

[exdeath]

And OHC is was way better than pushrod. If you think otherwise then you're an idiot.

Yeah the M3 V8 completely owns the LS7 in size, weight, power output, cost, fuel economy, parts availability, reliability, maintenance accessibility, mod potential etc.

You know what, forget LS7, it even owns the LS3.

"Oh but it only does it with 4 liters, imagine if it was 7 liters." Ok, then we can imagine at the same time the LSx is 9 liters, it would still win in size, weight, power output, cost, fuel economy, parts availability, reliability, maintenance accessibility, mod potential etc.

"Oh but Formula 1 does it blah blah blah blah..." is governed by arbitrary rules. Where would we be today if maximum valves per cylinder and maximum RPM and engine weight and size and maximum allowed camshafts were restricted by F1 rules, instead of displacement? That's right, we'd have some sick ass technologically advanced single cam pushrod engines that fit in the palm of your hand, weight 5 lbs, have one valve per cylinder, and made 2500 HP at 3 RPM and all the forum kiddies would be going off about how DOHC sucks.

 

[exdeath]

I love people with mechanical engineering doctorate degrees from Wikipedia, Google, and Top Gear. Goodnight.

 

[Bignate603]

I love people with mechanical engineering doctorate degrees from Wikipedia, Google, and Top Gear. Goodnight.

Exactly. There is a huge engineering advantage if you can get a simpler system to get the performance you want. You should only switch to a more complex system when it's impossible to meet the goals using the simpler design, even if the manufacturing cost is the same.

 

[dug777]

Exactly. There is a huge engineering advantage if you can get a simpler system to get the performance you want. You should only switch to a more complex system when it's impossible to meet the goals using the simpler design, even if the manufacturing cost is the same.

Exactly.

Which kinda brings back around in a full circle.

Ford apparently didn't go with IRS for the Mustang because they thought a live rear axle was cheaper. So they stuck with it.

Nowhere does the article linked to suggest that Ford stuck with it because it was 'better' than IRS.

In fact, nobody except some utterly insignificant proportion of people who buy Mustangs and want to drag race them appears to have any actual practical attachment to a live rear axle (outside of the 4WDing world, of course ), but as you say, it does the job (apparently very well cf the immediate competition) and they thought it was cheaper.

We can go round again if people want