Live axel saves $300 on 2005 Stang
- Thread starter Z28x
- Start date
SVTdriver
Founding Member
Omegalock said:
No it will never end. because the bitter IRS people keep bringing it back up. They find anyway they can to justify recycling an old over discussed topic. And while I appluad the concept of recycling. In this case it's just wasted. The car is going to have a live axle. Get over it. Stop using silly comparisions like drum brakes.
"We saved $300 a car, and that’s just materials,” Thai-Tang said. “That doesn’t include design, engineering and development, prototyping and tooling."
That means it would have been significantly more than $300. And yes they are developing it for the Cobra. Blah,blah,blah. The Cobra is significantly higher in cost than the gt.
Some people in here are trying to not get embarrassed in front of everbody else by giving me all the stupid BS reasons about why the Mustang should or shouldn't be like this and like that if it were to have or not to have IRS. WTF! Just deal with it. The Mustang is a muscle car. It's not some type of Formula One racer which is in need of IRS. The ricers are the cars which are well known to have IRS. Keep the Mustang out of the ricer category.
If you want IRS so bad go buy an Acura or a BMW and leave the Mustang GT alone. Or just go out and buy a Cobra Mustang. I am sick and tired of hearing all these stupid reasons about why the Mustang GT really needs IRS. The current and the older GT's in the last 40 years did very well without IRS and the new body style 2005+ Mustangs will do just as well without IRS. Get it thru your heads. The Mustang GT does NOT need IRS. End of story.
If you want IRS so bad go buy an Acura or a BMW and leave the Mustang GT alone. Or just go out and buy a Cobra Mustang. I am sick and tired of hearing all these stupid reasons about why the Mustang GT really needs IRS. The current and the older GT's in the last 40 years did very well without IRS and the new body style 2005+ Mustangs will do just as well without IRS. Get it thru your heads. The Mustang GT does NOT need IRS. End of story.
SVTdriver
Founding Member
351CJ said:
I have no problem with that. But I don't see it happening.
Yes this is a forum. But why keep starting threads about the IRS? There was already a thread on it. Then along it comes again. and again. And again. Why not just add on to the past thread?
The car was buit to support it. The development costs are already paid. The new SVT Cobra? or whatever it's eventually named will have it as standard equipment. Mass production would reduce the cost.
Sum total parts wise, we are talking about adding one additional control arm and a set of cv joints. That will certainly cost Ford about zilch.
Folks keep bringing it up because they think it was a bad decision. Nuff said.
Sum total parts wise, we are talking about adding one additional control arm and a set of cv joints. That will certainly cost Ford about zilch.
Folks keep bringing it up because they think it was a bad decision. Nuff said.
I'm not afraid of the new technology and change. I just don't want to have to pay an extra $1,000-$1,200 for something like IRS in a vehicle like the Mustang. It just adds more to the price of the car. I don't appreciate that. Cars are already as expensive as they can be. Automobiles like the Mustang don't need to get anymore expensive. If we keep adding stuff like IRS and other junk to these Mustangs they will cost more for the average consumer. That's why I am bitching about this. The Mustang is already expensive and it costs enough money right now. Don't make it anymore unaffordable.
SVTdriver
Founding Member
Z28x said:
Why does that seem to be the popular response to the whole live axle issue. Can't we just say that live axle is old tech and not have to compare it to drum brakes.
SVTdriver said:
I agree that the analogy is a bit silly, but it does hold water. Unless you drive like a maniac, race the car on a road course or drive up and down mountain grades on a reguar basis, you really won't see the fundamental advantage between disc and drum brakes. Drums work O.K. and are still generally more affordable to produce than discs. I don't see much difference between that argument and "all my roads are smooth" and "I really don't care how it handles" and, my favorite: "mustangs aren't meant to handle good".
SVTdriver said:
A lot of people, not just the mustang fans, but other cars like camaro and GTO fans are like, well back in 1964 the "insert car" had "feature X" so the 2004 car should have it. Things change in 40 years, you can't live in the past. Since it is a modern car it should have modern features, who cars what the Mustang or GTO had 40 years ago as long as the current car is 2 door RWD with a V8. If the Mustang was around back it the 1910's would people today want the crank start becuase back in day one it had a crank start, and electic starters add too much unwanted costs?
In 1965 Carol Shelby decided against using an IRS setup in the race version of the GT350 because it was found the solid setup could be made to handle just as well with some tuning. Now sure the IRS was 60's tech, but so was the car. Today we have this new platform that nobody here has tested and we have IRS technology that is current.
Ford spend some few hundred thousand hours and a few million dollars and found pretty much the same thing Carol found 40 freakin years ago through testing R&D; the solid setup on this new chassis does not justify the cost of IRS for the more or less daily driver task it will service for the masses. It saves Ford money and it saves us money. Now you'll have something to do with your modding dollars on a car that needs next to nothing... but you can bet you butt it won't be a $300 kit. After you go test this car you can bitch about this topic, but until that time it does not make much sense to gripe.
Ultimately you are not going to really know what is better or worse for YOU unless you get the opportunity to try both systems out on the exact same car on every possible road situation that you contend with in your daily routine for at least a month. So why did Ford do all this R&D if you're just going to do it all over again?
Z.
Ford spend some few hundred thousand hours and a few million dollars and found pretty much the same thing Carol found 40 freakin years ago through testing R&D; the solid setup on this new chassis does not justify the cost of IRS for the more or less daily driver task it will service for the masses. It saves Ford money and it saves us money. Now you'll have something to do with your modding dollars on a car that needs next to nothing... but you can bet you butt it won't be a $300 kit. After you go test this car you can bitch about this topic, but until that time it does not make much sense to gripe.
Ultimately you are not going to really know what is better or worse for YOU unless you get the opportunity to try both systems out on the exact same car on every possible road situation that you contend with in your daily routine for at least a month. So why did Ford do all this R&D if you're just going to do it all over again?
Z.
To start, I'm just fine with the GT being live-axle. I think it makes perfect sense for that particular model, and I'm sure Ford will release some special models with IRS that will, yes, cost a bit more, but that's life. But I'd love to see the IRS eventually become optional on the GT. I'd pay $1,200 for the IRS, because the improvement in driving dynamics for even day-to-day normal driving is SO profound. I own both live-axle and IRS equipped cars, and it's night and day to anybody who actually pays attention to what your car does going around corners and going down the road in general. And to say that $1000 is a big deal on a $25000 car is a bit silly. It's an extra 20 bucks a month on your payment for a more sophisticated handling and riding car. Anybody who thinks it's no big deal just doesn't know/care much about driving dynamics, or simply never gives much thought towards what's going on under their buns (i.e. 6-banger buyers and certain ranting members of this forum). You don't need to race on the ragged edge at Road Atlanta to realize the benefits of IRS, you just need a pulse and half-a-clue about driving dynamics as you squirt around town. It's an option that a BUNCH of folks wanting to get into the low-buck GT would pay another grand for, still saving tons over the expensive and hard-to-negotiate-a-deal-on Cobra. So, my take in short is: Live axle on GT is o.k., and probably smart since the majority of potential buyers want a low base-price and won't turn away from a live-axle car. I hope the IRS will become optional. And, anyone who just poo-poo's IRS in general, you'd probably be happy driving a 20 year old Ranger truck with Mustang bodywork. IRS equipped cars SCREAM their positive attributes when you drive them.
Similar threads
