Who wants IRS?

BackwardHatClub said:

Hah! That's a gem! "I drive well enough to not need IRS" As if driving skill has something to do with it. Better drivers don't get a better feeling out of live axles. There is no special skill involved in using it better.

Have you considered that most of us don't want to have to drive the speed limit, or whatever speed is needed to keep a live axle from banging and hopping us all over the place? The simple fact is that 99 times out of 100 IRS is a better setup than a live axle, and the fact that Ford is pinching pennies on a 25 thousand dollar car is disconcerting to say the least.

Click to expand...

And so if you decide to drive unsafe. It's Ford responsibility to allow you to do so? I think not. I have driven 2x the posted speed limit around corners. And had no problems. I'm sorry you don't seem to know how to drive properly (safely). I never said I had special skills. Merely that I have not lost control of my car. With it's supposedly bad live axle.

SVTdriver said:

And so if you decide to drive unsafe. It's Ford responsibility to allow you to do so? I think not. I have driven 2x the posted speed limit around corners. And had no problems. I'm sorry you don't seem to know how to drive properly (safely). I never said I had special skills. Merely that I have not lost control of my car. With it's supposedly bad live axle.

Click to expand...

I feel like I'm feeding the trolls by even replying to this, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

Ford makes a car, their responsibility (as a corporation) is to get me (as a consumer) to buy the car. If they are making a sports car like the mustang they should do this by building a car that gives me the best value as compared to it's competitors. Value is measured in many different ways by different people, but in general a sports car guy is gonna look at a few primary things: looks and design, speed and acceleration, handling, and price
a few secondary things: interior, comfort and space
and many tertiary concerns: Fuel economy, availability, dealer experience, cost of service, many other things...

Now obviously different people have different concerns and rank them differently but I feel as if that's a fairly average layout.

Ford is pricing these cars (GT's) at 25k plus and it competes with many other cars in and around that price range: Suburu WRX, Infiniti G35, Nissan 350Z, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, Dodge Neon SRT, Mazda RX-8, and so on.

Now what do all of these cars have in common? That's right; IRS. But wait, the Mustang has more HP than most of these cars. True, but on the other hand according to Ford's estimates it will be in the exact same range of acceleration as most of these cars. Some are slightly faster, some slightly slower, but it's all very close. So the speed issue is a wash, design is subjective, some people like it some don't, Ford has to stick with it's guns on that. But then we get to handling, now every single car I've listed (even the lowly 21k SRT-4) has IRS and Ford is lagging behind using 100 year old technology! So on what we've identified as one of the top issues to most buyers Ford is already losing.

As far as your experience never losing control of your car (which is highly anecdotal, some people liked communism, that doesn't make it a superior system of government), I'm glad to hear that you haven't lost control, but the fact that you have never done so in no way proves that live axle is the superior suspension arrangement. In fact I hope you aren't arguing that point. You can say "What's good enough for me should be good enough for everyone else" and that's your right, but I think it's a foolish argument.

As consumers I think it's our job to left Ford know that many of us desire IRS (because Ford and other manufacturers do read these boards) and hopefully Ford will respond.

BackwardHatClub said:

Ford is pricing these cars (GT's) at 25k plus and it competes with many other cars in and around that price range: Suburu WRX, Infiniti G35, Nissan 350Z, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, Dodge Neon SRT, Mazda RX-8, and so on.

Now what do all of these cars have in common? That's right; IRS. But wait, the Mustang has more HP than most of these cars. True, but on the other hand according to Ford's estimates it will be in the exact same range of acceleration as most of these cars. Some are slightly faster, some slightly slower, but it's all very close. So the speed issue is a wash, design is subjective, some people like it some don't, Ford has to stick with it's guns on that. But then we get to handling, now every single car I've listed (even the lowly 21k SRT-4) has IRS and Ford is lagging behind using 100 year old technology! So on what we've identified as one of the top issues to most buyers Ford is already losing.

As far as your experience never losing control of your car (which is highly anecdotal, some people liked communism, that doesn't make it a superior system of government), I'm glad to hear that you haven't lost control, but the fact that you have never done so in no way proves that live axle is the superior suspension arrangement. In fact I hope you aren't arguing that point. You can say "What's good enough for me should be good enough for everyone else" and that's your right, but I think it's a foolish argument.

As consumers I think it's our job to left Ford know that many of us desire IRS (because Ford and other manufacturers do read these boards) and hopefully Ford will respond.

Click to expand...

Ok are we again to rehash the competition issue? I'm not even going to try rehashing it anymore. Maybe the mustang could attract more if it had IRS. But you have no quarantees on that. And for it's supposedly losing buyers with the live axle argument. I'd say it's been doing just fine with well over 100k sales a year. Which was enough for it to deserve a complete redesign. And with this new redesign it is likely to attract people who liked the classics. But want one with more technology. And while yes the live axle is 100 years old. It has been getting improvements over that time. We no longer use leaf springs. And again I bring up. Have you test driven the new mustang to see just how badly it will handle? I didn't think so. So exactly how do you know it's worse. And what if when it comes out it handles better than everyone expects? Are you going to stop complaining? Ford will respond it is going to have a Cobra. And may have a special edition with IRS (though noone knows for sure).

I am not trying to say what's good for me is good for everyone. I am trying to say that if you decide that you want to violate a speed limit. Which is set by engineers unrelated to Ford (Or any other car manufacturer). Then it is not Ford's responsibility to build you a car to do so. Saying "Have you considered that most of us don't want to have to drive the speed limit". Is like saying. "Well many ricers like to put a big wing on their honda's So honda should build them with it already on." I'm sorry but as I have stated before. It should be an option. Because basicaly I don't think anyone should be forced to have IRS or live axle.

SVTdriver said:

If you go the speed limit or even a reasonable amount above the speed limit. Then you don't always need IRS.

Click to expand...

...nor a powerful V8, nor big brakes, nor sharp steering, ...

Sorry, sounds too much like dumbing down the criteria rather than raising the car and expections to meet them. Sure the new 3-link buggy axle will be a vast improvement over the current contraptions propping up the ass of the Stang, even on bumps, but then, how could it possibly not be (there's a case of meeting low expections). But will the lively axle, any lively axle, be up to the all around capabilities of a good IRS on real roads away from the artificially smooth confines of a drag strip.

Sure, the live axle is somewhat superior during those first 12-14 seconds down the quarter mile, but the rest of my two-hour, 150+mile Sunday afternoon drive in the mountains that would be far better served by an IRS, never mind the 95% of my dailing driving on the lumpy, bumpy roads of the real world. Seems to me, a live axle is optimal for maybe 5% of the driving a Stang will actually experience while a good IRS is optimal for the other 95% of the driving, including performance driving, that the Mustang will actually be used for. The live axle is either a simple penny-pinching decision to get the price point way down or a gross misinterpretation of driving priorities and use.

But I presume even Ford is not so insular, cheap, or overly swayed by the drag queens/kings not to offer an IRS in some sub-Cobra model.

rhumbline said:

...nor a powerful V8, nor big brakes, nor sharp steering, ...

Sorry, sounds too much like dumbing down the criteria rather than raising the car and expections to meet them. Sure the new 3-link buggy axle will be a vast improvement over the current contraptions propping up the ass of the Stang, even on bumps, but then, how could it possibly not be (there's a case of meeting low expections). But will the lively axle, any lively axle, be up to the all around capabilities of a good IRS on real roads away from the artificially smooth confines of a drag strip.

Sure, the live axle is somewhat superior during those first 12-14 seconds down the quarter mile, but the rest of my two-hour, 150+mile Sunday afternoon drive in the mountains that would be far better served by an IRS, never mind the 95% of my dailing driving on the lumpy, bumpy roads of the real world. Seems to me, a live axle is optimal for maybe 5% of the driving a Stang will actually experience while a good IRS is optimal for the other 95% of the driving, including performance driving, that the Mustang will actually be used for. The live axle is either a simple penny-pinching decision to get the price point way down or a gross misinterpretation of driving priorities and use.

But I presume even Ford is not so insular, cheap, or overly swayed by the drag queens/kings not to offer an IRS in some sub-Cobra model.

Click to expand...

http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=453403
Check the 4th post down. We were doing mountain cruiseing this last weekend. And far be it from me to bring reality into the discussion of mountain roads. But I was behind one of the many IRS cobras. Of course it was on a saturday.
It appears you have tested the 05 gt and don't like the live axle. Well maybe Ford should stop trying to design a live axle and go the lemming route. I mean everybody has IRS. So let's all run over the cliff. Without looking at the other ideas.
As for penny pinching. http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=453766
Seems like a few people are already complaining about the cost of a loaded gt. So heck let's add more stuff to it. So that more people can complain.
Are you begining to see my point? Nobody has tested the 05 to see how it handles adainst ANY other car. There are always compromises with any car. And to say that they should add a more expensive IRs system. Without testing what they are going to put in the car is just plain silly. Maybe I'm the only person that doesn't drive full throttle all the time. So I my car is acceptable without IRS (Did I say optimal? No, but acceptable). Again as many times before. It should be an option not a requirement. Keep the car within the price ranges of as many people as possible. Would I get one with IRS if it was an option. In all likelyhood yes. Am I satisifed that they have made an improvement without pushing the car out of people's price range. Yes.

Oh and can you point out the post I stated that the live axle was optimal? I have been trying to find it so I can correct my error. It was supposed to say acceptable.

I agree, the truth will be in the actual driving, and some reasonalby decent live axles have been designed, though not in recent history. But even given the best possible live axle design, there is, inevitably, the unavoidable physics of mass and interia and any live axle design, presuming they don't fashion it out of titanium and carbon fiber, will have a lot of both. And that mass/inertia will have negative consequences on both ride and handling.

Now whether one finds that, if not optimal, at least acceptable, is really up to the individual and how much ride/handling degradation they're willing to accept in a modern car. Given the competition and contemporary suspension designs, that's probably more than I'd be happy with. I'm a bit older and a little less bolder now, so I too don't use the gas peddle as a toggle switch. But with age has come a certain greater appreciation for the subtleties of the driving experience apart from sheer, raw speed -- in realizing it's not only how fast a car goes, but how well a car goes fast. I would like my Mustang to go fast, and well, not only in a straight line on smooth surfaces, but also on all the other roads I encounter with equal adeptness -- one that won't get tripped up by some bumpy curve and come to a staggering, clumsy crawl as the rear tires make incidental ground contaxt as the rear end bounds and judders from lump to bump like the current car. But that's just me...

But again, with none of us having any seat time driving an '05, final judgement will have to wait. I imagine the '05, buggy axle and all, will be a HUGE improvement over the current dinosaur of a chassis. And soon enough there will be some IRS version which can then be compared head to head against the live axle. Only then will all these board musing come face to face with cold, hard reality. Should be interesting in any case.

Pricewise, who knows, I'm sure the beancounters have run the numbers through a gizillion calculators. But too, there is a difference between a low price and a high value and I can't help but wondering if a greater overall value would have been had by devoting scarce development dollars to optimizing a slightly more expensive IRS rather than spreading them out over two suspension designs. But those are just musings.

I hope there is an IRS version that doesn't have to be a cobra. I'm not at all against IRS. If anything I'm more for it than against it. But I just feel like I'm stuck in an endless fedex commercial.
"If the mustang doesn't get IRS." It'll be doomed"
"Doomed"
"Doomed"
ya know what I mean?

Downgraded a touch perhaps, but certainly not doomed. And I too hope for a sub-Cobra level IRS offering.

See I believe that with the weight distribution they are going for in the new stang. Which is supposed to be better than the past models. That it should help the suspension even more. I mean if we talk aboiut bumy winding roads. Rally cars try to get 50-50 weight distribution. And than is what Ford is approaching on the new mustang. I've seen articles posting the weight distribution at either 52-48 ot 53-47(which is the vette's distribution). So I think it is going to be an improvement. Maybe not as much as if it had IRS. But enough that I and several 100k other people won't mind.

The improved weight distribution will certainly be a great thing, an example of good attention to performance chassis basics rather than trying to bandaid a mediocre chassis with ultra wide tires and ultra stiff chassis to rack up impressive, if somewhat artificial, test track numbers.

The all AL block and locating the battery well back in the engine bay should hugely improve not only overall weight and weight distribution, but just as importantly, the chassis moment of inertia -- i.e., how far out are the masses located from the CG and thus, how much inertia must the chassis overcome to effect a change in direction.

The current Stang, with its heavy FE block and battery located way out far from the CG, coupled with its short WB which gives it scant leverage over that far flung mass, is about the opposite of how a good, responsive chassis should be designed (amongst a multitude of other dynamic shortcomings).

The Next Stang, by dint of its improved weight distribution and mass centralization alone should be much more agile and adept dynamically. The overall front chassis design also appears to be worlds better than the current car and that should realize not only improved hard numbers and raw capability, but just as importantly, vastly better feel, feedback and balance.

As for the weight distribution's impact on rear suspension capability, especially over broken/uneven surfaces, that would be a small though welcome improvement. Basically you'll slightly improve the ratio of sprung vs unsprung mass, which is essentially a battle between the two masses as to which moves which more. However, the biggest and most significant variable in that equation still is the unsprung mass, i.e., moving suspension components. And with all else being equal in regards to the rear suspension design, a live axle's huge unsprung mass still puts it at a very distiinct disadvantage to an IRS and its resultant ability to react to an uneven road surface.

Again, this inherent disadvantage means little on the drag strip where the rear suspension basically doesn't move at all anyway and thus, the overall simplicity and (presumably) resultant robustness of a live axle do come to the fore. A similar situation also exists on very smooth roads and curves of any sort where the suspension basically is moving very little. That's why live axle cars can often do quite well on very smooth roads and road course tracks against IRS cars because neither suspension really is being taxed to do much in the first place.

When things get bumpy and more challenging however, as they usually do on most roads, things don't look so sanguine for a live axle. You can always resort to very stiff springs, shocks and bushings in an attempt to reign in a flailing live axle, but that comes at a very high detriment to ride quality, suppleness and the ability to accurately trace the road surface contours and maintain contact, traction and adhesion. A good IRS on the other hand, with far less mass and inertia to overcome, can far better follow the road surface contours with softer, suppler, more compliant shock/spring/bushings and thus maintain a much higher level of contact, traction and adhesion at far less of a cost in terms or ride quality -- sort of having your cake and eating it too.

This does, of course come at a greater cost, both in terms of coin and complexity. Whether that cost actually represents a good value to you really depends both on the depth of your wallet and your intended use for the car. If its limited to simple drag strip use or very smooth road driving, then perhaps not. If you desire a much broader and more widely capable performance envelope over a variety of real world road surface conditions, without jarring your fillings loose, then I would suggest the IRS does represent the better value.

rhumbline said:

If you desire a much broader and more widely capable performance envelope over a variety of real world road surface conditions, without jarring your fillings loose, then I would suggest the IRS does represent the better value.

Click to expand...

I guess I should ask what part of the world do you live in. Because the streets in my real world. Are not nearly as bumpy as you seem to think they are. Given cars with equal hp I am able to keep up with them in corners in my real world. Now sure maybe if I went rally driving on a logging trail. I might be in trouble. But I have never had any problems getting around my real world. And my suspension is bone stock. Now I realize my roads may be better taken care of than your roads. But to think that everyone has roads as bad as yours is not exactly a realistic idea.