• Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific Tech

Live axel saves $300 on 2005 Stang

  • Thread starter Thread starter Z28x
  • Start date Start date Feb 9, 2004

Would you by IRS if it was offered for $300 on the '05 Mustang

  • Yes, I'd buy IRS for $300

    Votes: 30 62.5%
  • No, I'd rather spend the $300 on another option

    Votes: 18 37.5%

  • Total voters
    48
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
1 of 4 Next Last
Z

Z28x

New Member
Sep 19, 2003
644
0
0
Albany NY
Feb 9, 2004
#1
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #1
From autoweek.com

Suspension is MacPherson struts in front and a live axle with coil springs in the rear. Surely there will be many of you decrying Ford’s use of a live rear axle in the 21st century. Consider, though, that Mustang engineers went this route because they claim they can tune the suspension to be better than some independent setups, as well as because an axle gives the Mustang better drag-strip-launch characteristics than does an independent setup. (You must love that last qualifier of pony-car character.) It also helps that a live axle is cheaper, keeping the car’s MSRP down. “We saved $300 a car, and that’s just materials,” Thai-Tang said. “That doesn’t include design, engineering and development, prototyping and tooling.
 

vrpirata

Founding Member
Jul 22, 2002
274
0
0
Southern California
Feb 9, 2004
#2
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #2
A $300 dollars in materials in the factory does not mean a $300 in the MSRP or a $300 option, the reflected price difference or cost of the option for the customer is usually several times the original cost of the parts.
 
C

CatmanJJ

Captain Tangnet
20+ Year Stangneter
Feb 5, 2002
4,379
1
68
Maryland
Feb 9, 2004
#3
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #3
vrpirata said:
A $300 dollars in materials in the factory does not mean a $300 in the MSRP or a $300 option, the reflected price difference or cost of the option for the customer is usually several times the original cost of the parts.
Click to expand...

I agree
 

ryanrule

impotent
Founding Member
Feb 11, 2002
1,355
0
0
Madison, WI
Feb 9, 2004
#4
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #4
he says all that bout design and such, dont they have to do it anyway for the svt?
 

66Satellite

Banned
Feb 6, 2003
649
0
17
Feb 9, 2004
#5
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #5
Z28x said:
“We saved $300 a car, and that’s just materials,” Thai-Tang said. “That doesn’t include design, engineering and development, prototyping and tooling. [/I]
Click to expand...

I'd say that translates to $1500-2000 sticker price. Probably fewer warranty issues for Ford, too--people are gonna beat on this car.

I thought we'd been through this already a few times.
 

XtorT'r

New Member
Jun 11, 2003
381
0
0
Minnesota, YAAA
Feb 9, 2004
#6
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #6
I'd get the IRS. Just cuz I don't drag too often. I like the Option.
 
Z

Z28x

New Member
Sep 19, 2003
644
0
0
Albany NY
Feb 9, 2004
#7
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #7
66Satellite said:
Probably fewer warranty issues for Ford, too--people are gonna beat on this car.
Click to expand...

I think the Cobra (with IRS) will get beat on more than the base V6 (no IRS)

Development dollars would have been saved if they only developed one rear end type, so basically it just comes down to cost of parts. If added as an option it would probably cost more than if added from day one on all models.

I'd spring for the IRS, I don't really road race or drag race much, but I would like the smoother ride as long as the car is my daily driver.
 
S

shatner saves

New Member
Jan 13, 2004
583
0
0
Feb 9, 2004
#8
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #8
The $300 material cost is the difference between the assemblies involved. With a ford and dealer margin of 50% (100% markup), that only comes out to $1200 on the sticker. That doesn't sound too bad to me.

IRS, if done right, can be very robust as well.
 

351CJ

New Member
Dec 11, 2002
1,732
1
0
Feb 9, 2004
#9
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #9
I would spend $1,000 for a good IRS in the blink of an eye.
 

SadbutTrue

Founding Member
May 1, 2002
2,390
4
49
Granada Hills, California
Feb 9, 2004
#10
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #10
they did say they could get the live axle to handle better than "some irs setups"... until someone proves otherwise, I am of the opinion the new stang will have a nice enough ride for me and I bet it will surprise quite a few higher end sports cars with its abilities.
 

ryanrule

impotent
Founding Member
Feb 11, 2002
1,355
0
0
Madison, WI
Feb 9, 2004
#11
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #11
when they put irs in the svt, is in gonna be in cradle like the current car, or is it actually going to be connected right to the car. it better be the latter
 
R

Ron Jeremy

New Member
Nov 13, 2003
747
1
0
Hollywood, California...I live next door to Jenna
Feb 9, 2004
#12
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #12
You guys are crazy to spend an extra $1,000-$1,200 for an IRS rear end. All the IRS does is add over $1,000 to the sticker price. People who cannot afford spending more money on stupid features like this will be unable to buy the car if the price is hiked another $1,000-$1,200. It's a good thing that Ford decided to not put IRS in the Mustang GT. I am glad. I am not going to pay an extra grand just because some people want IRS. If you want IRS go buy yourself a Cobra Mustang.
 
Z

Z28x

New Member
Sep 19, 2003
644
0
0
Albany NY
Feb 9, 2004
#13
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #13
$600 - $1000 would probably only be the price if it was an addon option. If it was built into all cars from day one it would probably only add $300-$500 to the MSRP. Don't forget they would have saved a lot by not developing a live axel.

Doing both was a good choice, 99% of V6 owners don't know/care the difference between a live axel and IRS. Plus now drag racers are happy. Too bad you can't get IRS on a cheaper Stang. Maybe that will be a future special model, 3v 4.6L with IRS for $26,000
 

skywarp

New Member
Nov 28, 2003
379
0
0
Feb 9, 2004
#14
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #14
The IRS option if available wouldn't sway my decision on the car. If it was affordable I'd probably buy it. Not that I would need it that much, solid axle is fine too. Mainly for resale.
 
R

Ron Jeremy

New Member
Nov 13, 2003
747
1
0
Hollywood, California...I live next door to Jenna
Feb 9, 2004
#15
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #15
The problem is that $1,000-$1,200 is not affordable. That's a lot of money for an option or for for even standard equipment on a car. Like I said before, if you want IRS buy a Cobra Mustang. Not a GT.
 
K

KidTwist51

Member
Jan 12, 2003
100
0
17
Beverly Hills, MI
Feb 9, 2004
#16
  • Feb 9, 2004
  • #16
I'm glad they cut costs, but an IRS costing Ford 300 dollars in parts is bull. Just cause it might cost the consumer standing at the parts counter at Joe Blow Ford 3 bills to buy the whole setup doesn't mean thats what Ford really pays to make thousands of the same thing. I would find it hard to believe Ford's parts cost on an IRS tops 150 bucks. maybe I'm wrong but think about it, thats kind of a misleading statement in my opinion.

-Chris
 
R

Ron Jeremy

New Member
Nov 13, 2003
747
1
0
Hollywood, California...I live next door to Jenna
Feb 10, 2004
#17
  • Feb 10, 2004
  • #17
It is a misleading statement.
 

BelueLX

Founding Member
Jul 10, 1999
1,195
1
0
Feb 10, 2004
#18
  • Feb 10, 2004
  • #18
yay for using old technology in a new car. go ford. they dont like pushrods much, but they sure do like live axles.
 
R

Ron Jeremy

New Member
Nov 13, 2003
747
1
0
Hollywood, California...I live next door to Jenna
Feb 10, 2004
#19
  • Feb 10, 2004
  • #19
Ford makes an excellent solid rear end. The Mustang is a drag muscle car. Keep it that way.
 
S

shatner saves

New Member
Jan 13, 2004
583
0
0
Feb 10, 2004
#20
  • Feb 10, 2004
  • #20
Ron Jeremy said:
Ford makes an excellent solid rear end. The Mustang is a drag muscle car. Keep it that way.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, why not put drum brakes on the car? why not sacrifice some torsional rigidity to take some weight out of the chassis? Why not do non-independent beam axle up front? A car that has a narrow scope of ability will appeal to a small group of hard core individuals and that's it. If that happens, boys and girls, our beloved mustang will go the way of the Camaro and we will be sitting in front of our tubes, posting about how great it *was*.

The "well, that's the way we've always done it" answer, is the reason the japanese and europeans have been steadily kicking the a$$es of the big 3 for the last 2 decades.

Having said that, I applaud the job ford has done on the new car. The new live axle design looks much cleaner and more efficeint than the old one. Coupled to the new, world class chassis, I think a lot of people will be really surprised at how well the whole package works. I also firmly believe that with a properly sorted IRS (emphasis on the "properly sorted"), the '05 will give a lot of the "superb handling" benchmarks out there real fits. Bring it in at a cost of around $26k, in a package that looks like a million bucks, and the europeans and Japanese might be sweating a bit.
 
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
1 of 4 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Place to Avoid: Jamison Auto Group in Gulfport, MS
  • D Durden
  • Oct 20, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • 2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jul 16, 2026
Noobz347
SN Mustang Magnum T56 swap
  • revhead347
  • May 24, 2024
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
15
Views
6K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Jun 28, 2026
GearHeadGuy
The LS Fox Concept Car
  • yldouright
  • Jul 19, 2018
  • Other Auto Tech
  • 2
Replies
28
Views
6K
Other Auto Tech Jul 26, 2018
General karthief
H
New Mustang Guy, And A New Project!
  • Heresy
  • Oct 19, 2015
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
14
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Nov 9, 2016
Heresy
H
2015 Ford Mustang Official Intel
  • MRaburn
  • Dec 5, 2013
  • StangNet Site News
Replies
0
Views
2K
StangNet Site News Dec 5, 2013
MRaburn
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?