The real reason the Mustang has a solid rear axle

[DivideBYZero]

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.

IMHO, there is nothing wrong with a 128, and there is a problem with my M3 as it doesn't seem to give me head any more. Maybe I married it?

 

[PricklyPete]

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. Are any German car engineers listening?

 

[PricklyPete]

IMHO, there is nothing wrong with a 128, and there is a problem with my M3 as it doesn't seem to give me head any more. Maybe I married it?

Maybe it just has a headache?

 

[punjabiplaya]

Exactly. Are any German car engineers listening?

we have KISS and Occam's Razor to remind us.

I don't know if there's a German equivalent.

 

[exar333]

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.

This 1000x.

When the marketing team leads development this goes away because the same old thing isn't 'sexy' to advertise. I love tech advancement, but I certainly will not pay MORE for the same performance just to say I have the newest tech. Advancements should provide increased value, otherwise all they do is increase cost.

 

[Throckmorton]

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.

A wishbone is easy to adjust camber with... use threaded rod. But I don't care about the track at all. Since the wishbones can gain more camber, you can have the tires parallel to the ground normally, and leaning into a turn when cornering. The best of both worlds, instead of having to dial in a bunch of camber. That's a good thing in the real world, when you can't pull over and have your pit crew adjust your suspension.

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....

Bean counter won and the product is inferior to what it would have been. You're defending them because of some weird class based fanboyism.

 

[Throckmorton]

:thumbsup:



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.

I don't know how you got from my posts that I only want newer and more advanced tech... I want the best tech and design for the job unless it really is too expensive. In a rock crawling offroad vehicle I want 2 solid axles and body-on-frame not unibody. For higher speed trails I want double wishbones or I beams in front and a coil sprung solid axle in the back. In a sports car I want wishbones and multilinks all around. In a Corvette with a low hood I want the engine that fits in there, which is a pushrod LS engine.

You seem to want what the manufacturer decides is good enough and saves them a few dollars.

I bet you're a big fan of these new platform sharing crossover SUVs that are completely incapable of offroad use, but save the manufacturers a few bucks over ladder frames and solid axles.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

The GTO and G8 were succesful. You guys JIYP over those cars.

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

Really? Which is why the Vette pushrod v8 makes as much power as it does and still gets good milage. Or the 6.0 V8 in the GTO could get 30MPG on the highway?
To say OHC is way better shows you don't know shit about cars.

The GTO and G8 were not successful. The GTO sold 40,000 units in 3 years. That's not succesful. The G8 didn't do to hot either. Being a car people like, and being a car people actually buy are 2 completely different things. Being a car that people buy makes it succesful.

GTO 3 years and out. It didn't even make it to the end with Pontiac.
I like the GTO. one of my Friends has one and it's a nice car. It just didn't sell well here and you can't deny that.
The G8 sold 30,000+ units in it's short life span, but nearly half of those sales were after Pontiac had been given the axe and the cars were heavily discounted.
Lutz said that the car would live on as the Caprice, then later retracted that statement because the market didn't warrant that car.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I don't know how you got from my posts that I only want newer and more advanced tech... I want the best tech and design for the job unless it really is too expensive. In a rock crawling offroad vehicle I want 2 solid axles and body-on-frame not unibody. For higher speed trails I want double wishbones or I beams in front and a coil sprung solid axle in the back. In a sports car I want wishbones and multilinks all around. In a Corvette with a low hood I want the engine that fits in there, which is a pushrod LS engine.

You seem to want what the manufacturer decides is good enough and saves them a few dollars.

I bet you're a big fan of these new platform sharing crossover SUVs that are completely incapable of offroad use, but save the manufacturers a few bucks over ladder frames and solid axles.

The most advanced tech isn't always the best tech. Look at RamBus Memory.

 

[Throckmorton]

The most advanced tech isn't always the best tech. Look at RamBus Memory.

That whole post was about how I don't want the most advanced tech, but the best for the job.

 

[exdeath]

I don't know how you got from my posts that I only want newer and more advanced tech... I want the best tech and design for the job unless it really is too expensive. In a rock crawling offroad vehicle I want 2 solid axles and body-on-frame not unibody. For higher speed trails I want double wishbones or I beams in front and a coil sprung solid axle in the back. In a sports car I want wishbones and multilinks all around. In a Corvette with a low hood I want the engine that fits in there, which is a pushrod LS engine.

You seem to want what the manufacturer decides is good enough and saves them a few dollars.

I bet you're a big fan of these new platform sharing crossover SUVs that are completely incapable of offroad use, but save the manufacturers a few bucks over ladder frames and solid axles.

Let me guess you want a 8 core 8 ghz cpu to browse forums all day and play starcraft too, but you dont run multithreaded apps or play games, you just want it because you need the best regardless if it benefits you or not?

Don't get me wrong, I do too, but the difference is I don't rail on and bash manufacturers or users who choose not to do that that where its not wanted or needed.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

That whole post was about how I don't want the most advanced tech, but the best for the job.

A solid rear axle is the best tool for the job of making the mustang go.
For a standard run of the mill mass produced car (IE not a luxury or exotic), trade offs have to be made to get the vehicle to a certain price point.

You don't seem to understand that different things are meant to do different things.
Those SUV's you don't like because they can't go offroad as well as your Jeep, guess what, they weren't designed to. They are designed as land yahats for 90lb soccer moms.

All of your assurmations about why Ford went with the solid rear axle in the Mustang are half thought out. You don't objectively debate the issue. You have your point of view and you only provide evidence that supports it, and you deny any that goes against it. You say that they went with it to save ~$100 per unit but it cost more anyways, but you don't know how much more it would have actually cost going with the IRS.

You seem to equate SUV's as being off roading vehicles. They are not. They are on roading vehicles designed for people that don't want to drive a mini van. They just happen to have some off roading ability because of their hieght.

I'm sorry that for you, 1 part of a vehicle is enough to make you dislike it. Personally, I and most sane people look at the thing as a whole package and base their beleif on that. Not some point that can be debated either way and for most people would never make a lick of difference.

For the record, The only SUV I ever liked was my 99 Ford Expedition 4x4 Eddie Bauer.

And I don't care what the manufacture decided. I'll freely admit that the people who are tasked with designing and creating the car know a lot more about that kind of thing than I or you do. When it comes to buying a vehicle, I buy what I want. Not what a bunch of people on the internet say is the coolest and most OMGAWSOME thing there is.

I actually test drive cars and base my opinions on that expience. I test drove the Camaro and it handle and rode like a broke dick donkey. I tested a CTS (not V) and it had a better ride and absorbed bumps better, but it also rolled a lot more around corners.

Since this thread started about the mustang and it's SRA, The Mustang along with the Camaro, Trans Am, GTO, Charger, Challenger, and any slew of other muscle/pony cars have all been about straight out stop light racing. And in that department, stock for stock. The Mustang wins. As much as that pains me to say, as I've been a Trans Am guy for a long time.

 

[Throckmorton]

A solid rear axle is the best tool for the job of making the mustang go.
For a standard run of the mill mass produced car (IE not a luxury or exotic), trade offs have to be made to get the vehicle to a certain price point.

You don't seem to understand that different things are meant to do different things.
Those SUV's you don't like because they can't go offroad as well as your Jeep, guess what, they weren't designed to. They are designed as land yahats for 90lb soccer moms.

All of your assurmations about why Ford went with the solid rear axle in the Mustang are half thought out. You don't objectively debate the issue. You have your point of view and you only provide evidence that supports it, and you deny any that goes against it. You say that they went with it to save ~$100 per unit but it cost more anyways, but you don't know how much more it would have actually cost going with the IRS.

Ford went with the solid axle because it was represented as costing $100 less per vehicle. Since they planned to use a specially developed IRS before, it seems pretty clear that they made a compromise for the sake of profit. How does that benefit the consumer? Why defend them for bean counting that leads to an objectively inferior product? It always puzzles me when people say "with the right engineering you can make anything work". Well with enough training a martial artist with bare hands can beat a swordsman, but given the same training the swordsman will most likely win.

You seem to equate SUV's as being off roading vehicles. They are not. They are on roading vehicles designed for people that don't want to drive a mini van. They just happen to have some off roading ability because of their hieght.

SUVs used to be offroading vehicles, because they were trucks with wagon bodies. And guess what-- soccer moms liked them too. The enthusiasts benefited from the truck underpinnings, and non-enthusiasts didn't know any better. Then, the crossovers started coming out, and they were fine because they were purpose built for soccer moms. The problem is that now the true truck-based SUVs are "crossing over". The next Explorer is on the Taurus platform. The Next Liberty will be based on some Fiat car platform. The new Grand Cherokee is based on the Mercedes crossover. Great for beancounters, bad for enthusiasts. We're damn lucky they didn't succeed in makinig the Mustang FWD and the Wrangler IFS.

The puzzling thing is that platform sharing with the Falcon might have saved Ford money. And they realize that because they're talking about merging platforms.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/10/05/report-rwd-ford-falcon-could-merge-platforms-with-mustang-not/

I'm sorry that for you, 1 part of a vehicle is enough to make you dislike it. Personally, I and most sane people look at the thing as a whole package and base their beleif on that. Not some point that can be debated either way and for most people would never make a lick of difference.

I think I'll buy a Mustang in a few years. But I would much rather buy one with IRS. Of course I'd like wishbones up front, but that's out of the question because that would require a whole new platform, which really would drive the cost of the Mustang through the roof.

For the record, The only SUV I ever liked was my 99 Ford Expedition 4x4 Eddie Bauer.

And I don't care what the manufacture decided. I'll freely admit that the people who are tasked with designing and creating the car know a lot more about that kind of thing than I or you do. When it comes to buying a vehicle, I buy what I want. Not what a bunch of people on the internet say is the coolest and most OMGAWSOME thing there is.

I actually test drive cars and base my opinions on that expience. I test drove the Camaro and it handle and rode like a broke dick donkey. I tested a CTS (not V) and it had a better ride and absorbed bumps better, but it also rolled a lot more around corners.

Since this thread started about the mustang and it's SRA, The Mustang along with the Camaro, Trans Am, GTO, Charger, Challenger, and any slew of other muscle/pony cars have all been about straight out stop light racing. And in that department, stock for stock. The Mustang wins. As much as that pains me to say, as I've been a Trans Am guy for a long time.

Stoplight racing is impractical and illegal in most cases... But cornering at high speeds isn't, and in the real world you find bumps on the roads. I don't care about the drag strip or the track, which BTW are both places that an IRS would do fine.

 

[exdeath]

No it wouldn't need a new platform. Get a 99-04 Cobra which comes with a rear SLA IRS, get in touch with Griggs or Agent47 who both make bolt on front SLA suspension systems, and have fun.

 

[Throckmorton]

No it wouldn't need a new platform. Get a 99-04 Cobra which comes with a rear SLA IRS, get in touch with Griggs or Agent47 who both make bolt on front SLA suspension systems, and have fun.

Wow, this is pretty awesome. Someone needs to do this for the current Mustang. http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/t_suspension.htm



But I read yesterday that the Cobra's IRS sucks because it was made to mount to the same hardpoints as the solid axle... hence owners swapping them for axles.

 

[Throckmorton]

Apparently the old Mustang had triangulated 4 link? Why did they switch to the asymmetrical 3 link + panhard?

 

[theeedude]

When's redesigned Mustang coming out? 2015 or so? I read in MT a while back that it's going to be a global platform with an IRS. I think Ford is very capable suspension engineers, seeing how good Mustang is even with a live axle, how good Fusion and Focus are with FWD, IRS RWD Ford Mustang should be nothing short of a revelation, and worth waiting for.

 

[Ackmed]

Funny to see all the Mustang haters.

I plan to get something like this down the road for my '68; http://www.cjponyparts.com/global-w...ll-block-single-adjustable-1967-1970/p/COK10/

I want to slap in a T-5 first though.

 

[exar333]

When's redesigned Mustang coming out? 2015 or so? I read in MT a while back that it's going to be a global platform with an IRS. I think Ford is very capable suspension engineers, seeing how good Mustang is even with a live axle, how good Fusion and Focus are with FWD, IRS RWD Ford Mustang should be nothing short of a revelation, and worth waiting for.

When the IRS Mustang is released, most people will not even tell the difference between that and the SRA model. It will not be a big deal. The existing tech appears to work well for the Mustang, I doubt IRS will be a 'game changer' here.

 

[exdeath]

Wow, this is pretty awesome. Someone needs to do this for the current Mustang. http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/t_suspension.htm



But I read yesterday that the Cobra's IRS sucks because it was made to mount to the same hardpoints as the solid axle... hence owners swapping them for axles.

No, the fact that it bolted in as a sub assembly in the standard live axle chassis with no modification to the unibody was a great engineering feat by SVT.

The reason it sucks in factory config is bean counters made SVT use softer durometer bushings than they designed it for to attempt to make it smooth and quiet like a Caddilac. When you user pliable material in a complex IRS assembly with many moving parts mounted in more flexible bushings mounted to the car in a sub frame which is mounted to the car in more jello, you compromise and destroy the whole system SVT engineered.

When you take the time and money to rebuild the IRS properly and zero out the idiot proof factory understeer bumpsteering, it's a phenomenal piece of gear and can take just as much abuse a live axle and drive like its on rails. Most just go the solid axle because its cheap (building up the IRS is not cheap) easy, proven, effective, and cuts 100 lbs of the curb weight, and because most are intimidated by or don't fully understand the intricacies if the IRS.

Its shitty when parts move in directions they aren't supposed to move and the tires point in random directions.

"you read that..." well I own that IRS and Ive rebuilt the Cobra IRS twice now, so I hope you trust me over teh randomz internetz.

 

[skyking]

The real reason the mustang doesn't have IRS is so that people can argue about it on the internet.

It's probably a bunch of things: budget, engineering, politics, etc...

I've read through this whole thread and this was closest to correct. Ford basically trolled us

 

[Demo24]

I've not ridden in a s197 but last time I was in the sn97(gen exdeath has) I distinctly remember being surprised at how the car reacted going over bumps. It wasn't harsh, but the wobbly, shaky feeling of the suspension bouncing around under the car was unnerving. I've heard the 2011's are much better in this regard than previous models. I think the main reason they are going with IRS next gen is for simple ride comfort.


It was my understanding that the live axle is part cost and partly due to the platform compatibility. It's only loosely based on the platform that underpinned the Lincoln LS, etc.

 

[ayabe]

I'm not sure the cost thing matters anymore, wouldn't the IRS actually have saved Ford something like $90 over the solid axle this last go around? I know I've read that in several places.

The current setup is great, but the end results don't always matter to Joe consumer. Whether it's an overall detriment to the car is debatable but I doubt there can be much debate that Ford does lose sales over it. There are people who won't buy a Mustang for that reason alone.

 

[Pariah]

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"

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.

That's because common sense would dictate that there was some truth to that line of thinking. Ford simply isn't capable of building a car that could compete on all levels with a BMW M3 or M5. Just take a look at the joke that is Ford's luxury brand, Lincoln, if you have any doubts about that. If Ford suddenly released this imaginary Mustang you dream about, which is basically a dressed up version of a base model that sells for under $20k, that beats an M3 across the board, you better believe there would be some head scratching and doubt.

When you have no history of producing something, everyone isn't going to be a sold the moment you do release one. This has nothing to do with brand snobbery. There are reasons an M3 costs $16,000 more and is a better all around car than a Boss Mustang, and it isn't just because it has an IRS, and it certainly isn't because it has a BMW badge as you want to claim.

 

[Arkaign]

That's because common sense would dictate that there was some truth to that line of thinking. Ford simply isn't capable of building a car that could compete on all levels with a BMW M3 or M5. Just take a look at the joke that is Ford's luxury brand, Lincoln, if you have any doubts about that. If Ford suddenly released this imaginary Mustang you dream about, which is basically a dressed up version of a base model that sells for under $20k, that beats an M3 across the board, you better believe there would be some head scratching and doubt.

When you have no history of producing something, everyone isn't going to be a sold the moment you do release one. This has nothing to do with brand snobbery. There are reasons an M3 costs $16,000 more and is a better all around car than a Boss Mustang, and it isn't just because it has an IRS, and it certainly isn't because it has a BMW badge as you want to claim.

(1)- Lincoln is largely still aimed at the 50+ market whom largely don't care about performance. For going to the golf course and country clubs and doctor's appointments, those old man machines are just fine. Not my cup of tea (I even think the MK-T is one of the ugliest vehicles ever to disgrace the roads, but meh), but it's a false conclusion to say that just because the brand is currently aimed at old people that Ford isn't capable of building excellent vehicles.

(2)- The CTS-V easily competes at all levels with the M5, and I looooooove the M5, but let's be honest here, the CTS-V is a monster. If GM is capable of building the CTS-V, Ford the Ford GT, and Dodge the Viper, then what would really stop them from making something on the level of an M3? The Mustang's purpose and market is not in any way to compete with the M3. Performance-wise, the regular GT 5.0 is already almost identical, winning in some areas and losing in others, but always by the very slimmest of margins. The GT350 has substantial improvements over the base GT, and would easily mop the floor with even the M3 w/Competition pack in pure performance. In terms of style, comfort, etc, well that's up to the buyer to make that decision.

Mustang GT ~$29k 412HP, 390TQ
BMW M3 Coupe ~58.9k (base, zero options), 414HP, 295TQ

That's neck and neck right there on the track, but if you're willing to put BMW $$ into the Ford, well ...

"Well, those opting for the Supercharged R-Tune model will make out with about 624 horsepower, with a total cost of $34,745.

In a press statement, John Luft, president of Shelby American said, "Our goal was to build the ultimate small block muscle car. The results show that the Shelby GT350 takes American performance to an entirely new level. In recent tests, the standard supercharged car hit 60 miles per hour in just 3.7 seconds and ran the quarter in 12 seconds flat at 121.4 mph, all while generating 1.05g of lateral acceleration and stopping from 60 mph in only 107 feet. We believe the 'R' tuned GT350 will be even faster." "

That makes a 620hp vehicle with 1.05g grip and psychotic acceleration about the same price as an average equipped M3 Coupe (just check BMW dealers for current price inventory, you seldom if ever see a base $58,900-level car in stock, though you can try to order one and wait for it).