The Complaint Department

JimF65 said:
Forget the BS about IRS being all that expensive. [snip]
The whole point is about bringing the Mustang into the 21st century. They just ain't doing it!!! At least as far as the ride and handling are concerned. With a V8, I think they could get away with live axle... those buyers are more about go power. But on the V-6, they really are giving up a lot of buyers if they don't have IRS and the attendant quality ride and feel.

AMEN, again.

The V6s should have it, because people who buy that want a nice car to drive around. ride and handling on the street should be compliant, calm, and confidence inspiring.

However, I argue that the V8 (GT or otherwise) should have it, too. Any serious performance car should. Other serious performance cars do.

And as for the one who says that owners can "just slap one in aftermarket..." How much money do you think that would cost? wouldn't exactly be in the purchase price of the car, would it? Would void the factory warranty, wouldn't it?

"Just buy a cobra" you say? How about you just buy a live axle? I can't afford a Cobra now, let alone when they cost north of 40k, which is likely.

"The mustang has never had an IRS, and why should it now?" How about: why not now? Technology is there, ready, and cost efficient (see my other posts, they'll explain that) why stay in the iron age with a new car? Every model that lags behind the market, puts the Mustang name further out of the vocabulary of the performance buyer outside of the drag strip. Try to disprove that.

my last point: For those 10 second bracket racers and the like, who argue that they need the simplicity and robustness of a live axle (and are probably correct):
How many of you are going to modify the live axle anyway? with gears, a 4 link setup, or a locker, or at least different springs and dampers? Or void the warranty with power adders, or chassis bracing/cages? You guys are the ones who are going to be dumping money into your racing setup, and that is great. Ford Racing Performance Parts can sell you a live axle kit to install, complete with brackets, 4.10 gears, and a locker or spool, and all the heavy duty 31-spline axles you want. That could even make it's way onto the factory options list, so that you could order it from a showroom.

Why not let the rest of us (the majority, BTW) have our 21st century ride quality and cornering performance?

WHY should someone who wants a truly competent street car for less than 30k have to compromise that, or buy a car other than what they really want, for the desires of a drag racer who is going to be doing costly, aftermarket, factory warranty-voiding mods anyway?

If you are planning on drag racing with a factory stock car, then make due with comes factory, which should be an IRS. Who knows, it might not make much difference for those of you at that level. IRS WILL make a big difference for US on the street. If you drag racers want to do better than stock equipment on the quarter mile, then the first thing you can do is swap in a good Live Axle that is set up the way you like.

Asking the general public to resort to the aftermarket on a new car is bass-ackwards, the racer minority are the ones that should go to the aftermarket, since they will be doing so anyway, for everything else.
 
It is pretty clear that most of the folks on this website want IRS, over 60% of the respondents to the poll. Considering that this is a heavily drag race oriented crowd, that speaks volumes. The percentage wanting IRS would be much higher if you polled the average car guy who understands the differences between the suspension setups.

I have played devils advocate on both sides of this discussion to gain a better understanding of the pros and cons. The cost is not an issue. The bean counters might save some cash, but realistically Ford has had an IRS system in Thuderbirds since 1989 plus the added experience with the Lincoln LS. Basically, between those two programs, the engineering and developement costs have been paid out and recouped.

The other question has been wieght. Yes, on the old Fox bodied Cobra there is a significant weight penalty for the IRS system. On the new car, this should not be the case. Why? Because this car is designed to accept the IRS without adding a lot of extra material to make it fit.

Finally, this would be a better street car if it had IRS. That in my mind puts the balance clearly in favor of IRS. I have driven several 1989-1997 Cougar/Thunderbirds, and they were realy great handling automobiles. Plus they had an excellent ride.
 
I'm new to this Forum and the Mustang although I've always liked and wanted one. The '05 may be enough of design change for me to finally decide to make the purchase.

Is it not true that there is no RWD sports car in the market today with IRS under $30K? Also, is it fair to bash the live axle setup when no one truly knows how it will perform? My Explorer Sport Trac is the first live axle RWD car that I have ever owned but I wouldn't say the ride sucks or is unstable. That seems to be the biggest potential gripe and not so much the handling.
 
svtnupe said:
I'm new to this Forum and the Mustang although I've always liked and wanted one. The '05 may be enough of design change for me to finally decide to make the purchase.

Is it not true that there is no RWD sports car in the market today with IRS under $30K? Also, is it fair to bash the live axle setup when no one truly knows how it will perform? My Explorer Sport Trac is the first live axle RWD car that I have ever owned but I wouldn't say the ride sucks or is unstable. That seems to be the biggest potential gripe and not so much the handling.

I hope you do get the opportunity to get a Mustang. It looks to be a very nice car. But, it could be even better, and sell more cars, with IRS.

Yes, there are cars under 30K with IRS. The RX8, 350Z, and Mercedes C-class coupe all start under 30k, and the top Miata SE fully loaded comes in well under 30k. But they are not the same cars as the Mustang. The RX8 and Merc are the only one with 4 seats, and the RX8 is designed to start where the GT mustang ends, in terms of trim levels, and standard equipment. The Mazda is closer to a true sports car than a mustang, the 350Z is a true sports car with only 2 seats, as is the Miata. Much more money has been spent on those cars for keeping the weight down, and torsional rigidity up. That is likely why they are so expensive. The Mazda's power characteristics are much different than the mustang's V8.

I am not counting the AWD Subies, and Mitsus, due to their different purpose, or the MR2 Spyder, since it specifically is "a FWD turned backwards", so naturally it has IRS, and couldn't support a live axle if the world depended on it. FWD transaxles mandate independent suspension. So does steering, but that doesn't affect the MR2. IRS is mandatory to compete in WRC for the Subies and Mitsus.

I have a Ranger 4x4, which has the exact same powertrain as the 4.0l sport-trac, and I expect it to ride like a truck. It does, even if it is considered smooth. It also weighs more than a Mustang, has leaf springs, and has 30" diameter tires with large sidewalls (read "Flex"). Same as your sport-trac. That is drastically different than a low Center of Gravity coupe, with 255/45-ZR18 low profile, high grip tires, that is expected to go around a corner faster than 30mph. My truck won't. Your truck won't, at least without uncomfortable amounts of body roll.

There are trade-offs inherent with having both wheels inexorably tied together, unable to change the angle between the two wheels, and having the upward motion of one, directly, or inversely affect the other wheel. The new panhard bar setup could be the best thing that ever happened to a live axle, but it still will only mask the weaknesses, and still only partially.

Independent suspension is inherently better, by isolating the rear wheels' position from each other, and letting them each do what they need to do. In a performance car, anti-roll, camber, caster, and toe angle can all be better controlled and optimized. Not to mention less unsprung weight, since the differential gets mounted to the car, not the wheels.

Even true off-roaders like the Hummer H1 and others have 4 wheel indepenent suspension, which designed for that purpose, has better articulation, where each wheel's traction is also very important.
 
Yeah the mazda's power characteristics are different. It The rx-8 needs a little something called hp. In the manual you get under 250. And then for some reason they drop to near 200hp if you choose an automatic. Which doesn't inspire much confidence in the automatic. And to top it off they overrated them and had to offer money back.
 
SVTdriver said:
Yeah the mazda's power characteristics are different. It The rx-8 needs a little something called hp. In the manual you get under 250. And then for some reason they drop to near 200hp if you choose an automatic. Which doesn't inspire much confidence in the automatic. And to top it off they overrated them and had to offer money back.

It is a shame that there was an error in the horsepower published ratings. (honest) Not at all like the SVT cobra a couple years ago. (sarcasm)

The transmission is not the only consideration for the automatic car's power level. The fact of the matter is that the auto cannot withstand approaching the engine's 9000 RPM redline. To get enough horsepower lower in the rev range, they had to go with a 4 port peripheral design, and it lowered the horsepower, but also made the peak low enough to make the automatic work correctly.

The Manual transmission car has the full horsepower rating, and all 6-ports in the motor.

Keep in mind that it did win Engine of the Year, from other powertrain engineers. It is a great engine, has huge volumetric efficiency and light weight. It is simply different from an american V8, like ford's OHC modulars. I happen to like both engines a great deal.
 
Yes SVT did make an error. So you would think since mazda is owned by Ford they would have known better. The manual was also overrated. I don't think it was off as much as the auto. But I have read some forums with manual owners ticked off.Yeah it's just different alright. I've never been a fan of the rotary engine. It has some good points. But I'm just not feeling it.
 
JimF65 said:
The whole point is about bringing the Mustang into the 21st century. They just ain't doing it!!! At least as far as the ride and handling are concerned. With a V8, I think they could get away with live axle... those buyers are more about go power. But on the V-6, they really are giving up a lot of buyers if they don't have IRS and the attendant quality ride and feel.

I respectfully disagree. While your whole point may be about Ford bringing the Mustang into the 21st century, I'll bet that Ford Motor Company's whole point is to produce a sporty new Mustang that:
(A) they can sell for a profit,
(B) people like the look of,
(C) customers can reasonably afford.

90% of all car buyers don't know squat about whats under the hood of the car they're buying, much less what IRS is. They buy based upon looks and monthly payment... most don't even understand the actual selling price! These "regular people" are the real target audience, not the racers, not the enthusiasts, and certainly not the relatively few that frequent discussion groups like here. True Mustang enthusiasts will look beyond any design flaws and just upgrade their cars to their liking, just like they have always done. Some folks will wait for an upgraded model, and yet others will go buy a GTO or something. Ford's strategic thinkers have already determined who will be buying this car. They have already identified which drivers they expect to bring over to Ford, and which Ford customers they may lose to the competition.

Its really not about us, no matter how much we wish it was. Its about Ford staying in business and bringing its shareholders a profit. That's what bringing the Mustang into the 21st century is all about!
 
GaPonyFarm said:
I respectfully disagree. While your whole point may be about Ford bringing the Mustang into the 21st century, I'll bet that Ford Motor Company's whole point is to produce a sporty new Mustang that:
(A) they can sell for a profit,
(B) people like the look of,
(C) customers can reasonably afford.

90% of all car buyers don't know squat about whats under the hood of the car they're buying, much less what IRS is. They buy based upon looks and monthly payment... most don't even understand the actual selling price!

If that were wholly true......then the Mustang would be a FWD econobox going the way of the Probe.

Apparently...enough people cared what's under the hood that the Mustang was saved that ignominous fate not once, but twice (in 1986, then again in 1993, both times it was to become the Probe).
 
Not to interject any reality here. But we are all just speculating that IRS or a 6 speed. Or anything else would make the mustang sell better. But Ford has been selling mustangs for how long? 40 years so I think I would trust them to make the decision. On what will or won't be in the 05.
 
GaPonyFarm said:
Its really not about us, no matter how much we wish it was. Its about Ford staying in business and bringing its shareholders a profit. That's what bringing the Mustang into the 21st century is all about!


Actually, you / us is exactly why the car has a live axle at all. The project manager said as much in an interview. It was re-designed after the fact for the 30% of racers that say they want it, at the behest of a Ford Senior vice president. Read some of the other posts here and in the IRS Poll thread, and see why it isn't a significant cost impact. It has been explained in detail.

The car was designed for an IRS. The IRS is designed for that car. People who drive cars know that car A rides better than car B. Live Axle = A, and IRS = B. People who drive cars also have stereotypes about how old RWD live axle cars handle snow and ice. IRS could be a marketing, and a real world benefit for those people, and for those of us who do know the difference, as well. And a car that sells better, makes stock prices go up.
 
SportscarFan said:
Actually, you / us is exactly why the car has a live axle at all. The project manager said as much in an interview. It was re-designed after the fact for the 30% of racers that say they want it, at the behest of a Ford Senior vice president. Read some of the other posts here and in the IRS Poll thread, and see why it isn't a significant cost impact. It has been explained in detail.

The car was designed for an IRS. The IRS is designed for that car. People who drive cars know that car A rides better than car B. Live Axle = A, and IRS = B. People who drive cars also have stereotypes about how old RWD live axle cars handle snow and ice. IRS could be a marketing, and a real world benefit for those people, and for those of us who do know the difference, as well. And a car that sells better, makes stock prices go up.

Did you just state that car A handles better than car B. And car A has the live axle not the IRS?
 
SVTdriver said:
Not to interject any reality here. But we are all just speculating that IRS or a 6 speed. Or anything else would make the mustang sell better. But Ford has been selling mustangs for how long? 40 years so I think I would trust them to make the decision. On what will or won't be in the 05.

Oh please...Ford almost killed the Mustang twice...and just getting the 05 approved was a battle for guys like John Coletti et al (thank God they won).

Plus many of these same guy who are singing "Hallulujah" are probably all the same guys who threw a hissy fit when the 4.6 debuted in 1996. Ford has gotten it wrong before (need we mention the Mustang II), and they can't get it wrong again.
 
Mach460 said:
Oh please...Ford almost killed the Mustang twice...and just getting the 05 approved was a battle for guys like John Coletti et al (thank God they won).

Plus many of these same guy who are singing "Hallulujah" are probably all the same guys who threw a hissy fit when the 4.6 debuted in 1996. Ford has gotten it wrong before (need we mention the Mustang II), and they can't get it wrong again.

Have you seen the thread with how well the mustang II actually sold? It happens to have sold very well. Just because your opinion towards it sucks. Does not make it a mistake. It kept the mustang alive during dark fuel shortage years. Yes they ALMOST killed it. But it's still here. So everything got settled did it not.
 
SVTdriver said:
Did you just state that car A handles better than car B. And car A has the live axle not the IRS?


I apologize. I meant that to be that Car A "rides" better than Car B, and that the better ride belongs to the IRS suspension. Something a non-technical, subjective car driver would be able to notice.

I guess I was too engrossed in the thought to double check what I wrote. I am sure it is quite clear, and belabored, which setup I am in favor of. :owned: