The real reason the Mustang has a solid rear axle

[exdeath]

Im not knocking the M in any way, I'm just saying the people who are whining about things like the axle are people that wouldn't be caught dead in the car anyway IRS or not. They just bitch about the solid axle because its an easy target and popular bandwagon. If it gets IRS I'm sure they will bitch about the AC vents not being studded with diamonds or something equally retarded.

Like I said I get people who tell me my car sucks because its outdated tech and has push rods and a truck axle, but when I show them the DOHC 32v on the valve cover and the clearly visible sla upper and lower arms of the IRS, they sneer and say "well then its still a Mustang". In other words it doesn't matter to them anyway they are biased and just hating on a brand and not really knowing the virtues or drawbacks of the car, eg badge snobs.

Likewise people making out like the lack of IRS is stopping them from buying an '11 are just talking out their ass, they well never buy one. That is until they cost $100,000 and everyone on MTV and rap videos are pimpin them. That's the elitism stigma they are attempting to cover up by hiding behind "solid axles, pushrods, leaf springs" pretending these are some inferiority that makes their bias legit.

 

[Pariah]

(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.

The current Lincoln lineup is a joke compared to BMW's. Not sure why you wasted your time typing up this paragraph to tell me why I am right.

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?

Your obsession with performance has blinded you from seeing any other aspect of a car. A Dodge Viper and a BMW M3 have absolutely nothing in common. Cadillac announced the original CTS in 2001. The current gen CTS-V was released at the very end of 2008. Ignoring the years of development pre-dating the original CTS announcement, it took Cadillac an additional 8 years of development to release the current CTS-V. Ford has nothing in their current lineup or even announced that can be tweaked and massaged in six months to complete with Cadillac and the Europeans in the luxury performance sedan market. They are years away at the earliest from being a competitor in the market. So it is a perfectly valid statement to say that Ford is incapable of producing a car that can compete with an M3 or M5.

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

blah blah blah, 973HP....blah blah blah, 4:25 ring time.. blah blah blah... 26" carbon ceramic brake package... blah blah blah

The performance numbers obsession continues despite the fact I never said the Mustang was slower than an M3 and couldn't compete with it.

Like I said I get people who tell me my car sucks because its outdated tech and has push rods and a truck axle, but when I show them the DOHC 32v on the valve cover and the clearly visible sla upper and lower arms of the IRS, they sneer and say "well then its still a Mustang". In other words it doesn't matter to them anyway they are biased and just hating on a brand and not really knowing the virtues or drawbacks of the car, eg badge snobs.

Would it make you feel better if they said it's still a Mustang right from the start? You claim brand hating buy the rich, but the opposite is just as true. For every person you describe, there is another one that will hate on the BMW guy for spending x amount of dollars more for the same performance you can get from a Mustang. You're ignoring the truth if you deny there isn't an equally large population of people who have nothing better to do but call the M3 guy a rich poser who is a moron for spending $70k on a car when a "Mustang is just as good a car." Guess what, it isn't. Yes, the current Mustang can compete on a track with an M3, but it isn't equal on any other level with the M3, and that's why the M3 costs so much more, and probably why the M3 owner spent all that money on it, not because he was looking for the best bang for buck track car or quarter mile drag racer.

Likewise people making out like the lack of IRS is stopping them from buying an '11 are just talking out their ass, they well never buy one

I would absolutely agree with this statement. And it goes for a ton of crap that goes on on these forums.

"What? The M5 is going to be automatic only? WTF! BMW is selling their soul. I'm never gonna buy an M5 now."

Really? 99% of the people saying that, couldn't afford one in their lifetime anyway. So who gives a sh*t what they think. BMW certainly doesn't, nor should they.

 

[Arkaign]

^^ Nice selective quoting, I already know that there are two different buyers, and I wouldn't look down on someone for buying the Ford or the M3. They appeal to vastly different segments.

Lincoln is just fine for the old people that buy them. Not sure why that's a problem.

 

[Throckmorton]

Im not knocking the M in any way, I'm just saying the people who are whining about things like the axle are people that wouldn't be caught dead in the car anyway IRS or not. They just bitch about the solid axle because its an easy target and popular bandwagon. If it gets IRS I'm sure they will bitch about the AC vents not being studded with diamonds or something equally retarded.

Like I said I get people who tell me my car sucks because its outdated tech and has push rods and a truck axle, but when I show them the DOHC 32v on the valve cover and the clearly visible sla upper and lower arms of the IRS, they sneer and say "well then its still a Mustang". In other words it doesn't matter to them anyway they are biased and just hating on a brand and not really knowing the virtues or drawbacks of the car, eg badge snobs.

Likewise people making out like the lack of IRS is stopping them from buying an '11 are just talking out their ass, they well never buy one. That is until they cost $100,000 and everyone on MTV and rap videos are pimpin them. That's the elitism stigma they are attempting to cover up by hiding behind "solid axles, pushrods, leaf springs" pretending these are some inferiority that makes their bias legit.

I for one would never buy a luxury brand. If I had wealth I wouldn't show it off and I'm not sure how people do without feeling self conscious. I downgraded from a Grand Cherokee to a Cherokee and one reason was that even that level of luxury made me feel uncomfortable

 

[darkswordsman17]

The current Lincoln lineup is a joke compared to BMW's. Not sure why you wasted your time typing up this paragraph to tell me why I am right.



Your obsession with performance has blinded you from seeing any other aspect of a car. A Dodge Viper and a BMW M3 have absolutely nothing in common. Cadillac announced the original CTS in 2001. The current gen CTS-V was released at the very end of 2008. Ignoring the years of development pre-dating the original CTS announcement, it took Cadillac an additional 8 years of development to release the current CTS-V. Ford has nothing in their current lineup or even announced that can be tweaked and massaged in six months to complete with Cadillac and the Europeans in the luxury performance sedan market. They are years away at the earliest from being a competitor in the market. So it is a perfectly valid statement to say that Ford is incapable of producing a car that can compete with an M3 or M5.



blah blah blah, 973HP....blah blah blah, 4:25 ring time.. blah blah blah... 26" carbon ceramic brake package... blah blah blah

The performance numbers obsession continues despite the fact I never said the Mustang was slower than an M3 and couldn't compete with it.




Would it make you feel better if they said it's still a Mustang right from the start? You claim brand hating buy the rich, but the opposite is just as true. For every person you describe, there is another one that will hate on the BMW guy for spending x amount of dollars more for the same performance you can get from a Mustang. You're ignoring the truth if you deny there isn't an equally large population of people who have nothing better to do but call the M3 guy a rich poser who is a moron for spending $70k on a car when a "Mustang is just as good a car." Guess what, it isn't. Yes, the current Mustang can compete on a track with an M3, but it isn't equal on any other level with the M3, and that's why the M3 costs so much more, and probably why the M3 owner spent all that money on it, not because he was looking for the best bang for buck track car or quarter mile drag racer.



I would absolutely agree with this statement. And it goes for a ton of crap that goes on on these forums.

"What? The M5 is going to be automatic only? WTF! BMW is selling their soul. I'm never gonna buy an M5 now."

Really? 99% of the people saying that, couldn't afford one in their lifetime anyway. So who gives a sh*t what they think. BMW certainly doesn't, nor should they.

I'm not even sure what your point about all that first part is. Ford doesn't have a competitor to the M3/M5 because they have no need/desire to (although that's actually not the case, as they did aim for the M3's performance with the Mustang). Well, that and Jaguar was the brand they were intending to compete with BMW, but they no longer own them. I don't know why you're talking about how long it took from the original CTS to the current CTS-V. By that logic, it took BMW 25 years to make a car that competes with the current CTS-V?

And, hey, obviously BMW can't make a competitor to the F-150 Raptor, so they suck! :sneaky:

As for the bashing people for buying a car. Aside from one jackass (that I think was probably joking), I haven't seen anyone on this forum trash someone over looking at or owning BMW (in fact, its almost always the opposite), but there were some people that thumbed their nose at the Mustang whenever that magazine test where the Mustang was right with the M3 was posted. As pointed out in that thread, with the price disparity between the two, you can easily make the Mustang a more tech-wonder and luxurious car than the M3, so those excuses are pretty empty. Of course that still didn't stop the people from bashing the Mustang for no reason other than it being a Mustang even though no one was even bashing the M3.

Read the last 3 sentences you posted. And you're trying to act like BMW people get picked on? You ever stop to think saying stuff like that might be the reason for it?

I for one would never buy a luxury brand. If I had wealth I wouldn't show it off and I'm not sure how people do without feeling self conscious. I downgraded from a Grand Cherokee to a Cherokee and one reason was that even that level of luxury made me feel uncomfortable

Er...this thread is just weird now.

 

[dug777]

The thread lost the plot long, long ago

Article says Ford kept an LRA to save money (although it then says that turned out to be a false economy).

People (Ford/Mustang fans maybe?) throw up a strawman - that motoring journos rate the LRA Mustang over it's immediate 'muscle car' rivals. (So? Means no more than that the IRS setups on those cars are mediocre and the LRA Mustang is an example of bloody brilliant tuning - says nothing about the relative merits of IRS vs LRA. Wow: crap IRS is worse than a top notch LRA setup in a lighter car? Fsck me!)

Everyone descends into random arguments about the relative merits of struts, off-roading, automotive elitism and cocker spaniels (the sad bit is that I only made up one part of that ).

Profit?

The bottom line is that Ford apparently intended to go to IRS, but decided to stick to an LRA to save money (but apparently didn't).

Nothing more, nothing less...

 

[Throckmorton]

Er...this thread is just weird now.

How so? IRS isn't some luxury feature. It's functional and it's cheap to build. In this case it was already engineered unlike the solid axle.
Even Ford's own economy car the Focus has IRS. It's depressing when cars get nerfed in an effort to shave a few bucks from production cost. Even more depressing when it gets justified with "But this is a car for you middle class schmoes, and you couldn't afford the extra $100". Nobody is going to pass on a Mustang and buy a Hyundai because of $100.

 

[Howard]

How so? IRS isn't some luxury feature. It's functional and it's cheap to build. In this case it was already engineered unlike the solid axle.
Even Ford's own economy car the Focus has IRS. It's depressing when cars get nerfed in an effort to shave a few bucks from production cost. Even more depressing when it gets justified with "But this is a car for you middle class schmoes, and you couldn't afford the extra $100". Nobody is going to pass on a Mustang and buy a Hyundai because of $100.

Seriously, this bullshit needs to step. You need to think about your crap logically.

Wait, let me do that for you.

1) Your sources tell you that the IRS would've been cheaper.
First of all, they could be wrong, and second of all, too fucking bad. What's done is done and perhaps Ford is even fixing their mistake for the next generation. Don't retain sand in your vagina just for the hell of it.

2) The IRS will supposedly make the car perform better.
Who gives a shit? Is the current Mustang not good enough?

 

[punjabiplaya]

this is the real reason the mustang needs IRS

 

[Throckmorton]

Here's a related article on why the Lotus 7 has a De Dion axle instead of IRS

http://7faq.com/owbase/ow.asp?deDionOrIRS

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I for one would never buy a luxury brand. If I had wealth I wouldn't show it off and I'm not sure how people do without feeling self conscious. I downgraded from a Grand Cherokee to a Cherokee and one reason was that even that level of luxury made me feel uncomfortable

Uncomfortable or you feel guilty of having something nice?

 

[DivideBYZero]

I for one would never buy a luxury brand. If I had wealth I wouldn't show it off and I'm not sure how people do without feeling self conscious. I downgraded from a Grand Cherokee to a Cherokee and one reason was that even that level of luxury made me feel uncomfortable

That's completely your problem, not anyone elses. If you project that image onto those that drive the brands you would 'never buy' and it makes you feel bad for some reason, how is it their issue? Would they even know that's what you think of them? Would they care if you told them? Probably not. Would it change their vehicle choices? Most likely no, it wouldn't.

You wrongly assume that people buy these cars to show off or to 'get vag'. Sure, some do, just as some people buy a Mustang to show off and 'get vag', too.

 

[Throckmorton]

WTF, I get flamed for supposedly wanting IRS in my musclecar because it's not a BMW(???), and then I get flamed for not wanting a luxury car?

 

[Howard]

WTF, I get flamed for supposedly wanting IRS in my musclecar because it's not a BMW(???), and then I get flamed for not wanting a luxury car?

You're getting flamed because you think you are the smartest non-auto-engineer not employed by an auto manufacturer.

 

[Throckmorton]

You're getting flamed because you think you are the smartest non-auto-engineer not employed by an auto manufacturer.

What are you talking about? It's just a fact that a solid axle is worse going over bumps. You can't change that with any amount of engineering. Are you disputing that? Explain to me how you can prevent the motion of one wheel going over a bump from tilting the other wheel on a solid axle.

The engineers actually wanted IRS. They even engineered an IRS specifically for the Mustang. It was the bean counter who convinced the boss man to switch to solid axle to save $100 per vehicle.


Have you even driven a vehicle with a solid axle? I have two on mine.

 

[Vic Vega]

You're getting flamed because you think you are the smartest non-auto-engineer not employed by an auto manufacturer.

It's pretty comical actually. :thumbsup:

 

[Throckmorton]

Check out some posts by actual Mustang owners..
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/2011-mustang-talk/283493-solid-rear-axle.html

The consensus is very clear-- you notice that it has a SRA on bumpy roads. Like I said, you can't engineer away an inherent trait of a suspension type.

 

[DivideBYZero]

God dammit, are you and ShawnD1 related?

 

[Howard]

What are you talking about? It's just a fact that a solid axle is worse going over bumps. You can't change that with any amount of engineering. Are you disputing that? Explain to me how you can prevent the motion of one wheel going over a bump from tilting the other wheel on a solid axle.

The engineers actually wanted IRS. They even engineered an IRS specifically for the Mustang. It was the bean counter who convinced the boss man to switch to solid axle to save $100 per vehicle.


Have you even driven a vehicle with a solid axle? I have two on mine.

Do you like lists?

1) Everybody understands what point you are trying to make. We are not stupid.
2) Everybody understands that this little thingy you're arguing is essentially meaningless.
3) Your incessant blathering is driving everybody crazy.

 

[Throckmorton]

Do you like lists?

1) Everybody understands what point you are trying to make. We are not stupid.
2) Everybody understands that this little thingy you're arguing is essentially meaningless.
3) Your incessant blathering is driving everybody crazy.

I don't understand what it is you're arguing. You know Ford chose to go with the solid axle to save $100 per car. You know the IRS means better handling on bumpy roads. So what is your problem?

A few of you seem to be arguing very adamantly the position: "The Mustang's solid axle is very well engineered and performs almost as well as an IRS on smooth racetracks, therefore it is good enough and the Mustang doesn't need IRS".

I don't get the last part. Why does the fact that it's well engineered and works well on smooth surfaces mean that the Mustang should have a solid axle and not IRS? Why are you so adamant that the beancounting choice is "good enough"? I can't imagine you'd make the same argument if the Mustang was FWD (there are FWD cars with better handling than some RWD), or didn't have a V8 option (300hp is good enough isn't it?). And imagine how much money Ford would save with only a single engine choice and a cheap FWD platform!
Yet when it comes to solid axle vs IRS, the beancounters were right, the engineers who spent months working on an IRS specific to the Mustang were idiots, and everybody who won't stick their fingers in their ears and chant "well engineered! well engineered!" and deny inherent characteristics of a solid axles are idiots.

 

[Howard]

tl;dr

Problem lies not with me, but with you. You talk too much about stupid shit.

 

[Throckmorton]

Problem lies not with me, but with you. You talk too much about stupid shit.

Hey, nice meaningless post. You seem to be insulting me for having an opinion and trying to discuss it on a forum. I believe your one post in this thread before today was "nothing matters". Why are you trolling me?

 

[Howard]

Hey, nice meaningless post. You seem to be insulting me for having an opinion and trying to discuss it on a forum. I believe your one post in this thread before today was "nothing matters"

I'm quite pleased. You can actually talk about something other than the Mustang.

 

[Throckmorton]

I'm quite pleased. You can actually talk about something other than the Mustang.

I still don't get why you insist on all these meaningless posts.

Why don't you thank me for debunking the myth that existed on this forum that an IRS would have cost thousands more and weighed hundreds of pounds more, and go start a thread about motorcycles or Ferraris or something?


If you want to argue about something like the merits of independent suspensions vs solid axles, or beancounters vs enthusiasts, go ahead. Just stop with the meaningless "you're stupid and I'm smart and you should never criticize a car because you're not an auto engineer" posts. It's really tiresome.

 

[Howard]

I still don't get why you insist on all these meaningless posts.

Why don't you thank me for debunking the myth that existed on this forum that an IRS would have cost thousands more and weighed hundreds of pounds more, and go start a thread about motorcycles or Ferraris or something?

Is this what it's about? Your ego? Because I'm sorry to say that your benevolence has had an effect other than intended.