No IRS on SVT Mustang?

[JST]

At least according to Motor Trend:

http://www.bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/05/05/se.htm

We will know for sure at the end of March.

[blee]

Interesting. I wonder what price point they're striving to reach?

[JST]

Interesting. I wonder what price point they're striving to reach?

My guess is that 39,995 is what they'll charge for a coupe. Possibly slightly less, but I doubt any more.

[clyde]

I still think that they're trying to play all angles. Base will be live and IRS will be optional (but perhaps not at launch or even first year).

[lemming]

unlike pushrods, i find this to truly an issue.

maybe i'm completely wrong and you can point out why this is wrong thinking on the issue of suspensions?

[blee]

Live axles have their disadvantages, but manufacturers have given them amazing tractability. A modern solid rear may never be as tractable on pockmarked roads as an IRS, but it will be more than tolerable. The solid axle is also much easier to launch (a favorite Mustang activity) and safer to do so. Finally, it's less expensive.

My guess is that, if the IRS is truly missing from the SVT model, it's because Ford is trying to stick to the sub-$40k price point. IRS would be nice to have as long as it's better than the existing solid axle setup, but it may not be worth the money.

[lemming]

Live axles have their disadvantages, but manufacturers have given them amazing tractability. A modern solid rear may never be as tractable on pockmarked roads as an IRS, but it will be more than tolerable. The solid axle is also much easier to launch (a favorite Mustang activity) and safer to do so. Finally, it's less expensive.

My guess is that, if the IRS is truly missing from the SVT model, it's because Ford is trying to stick to the sub-$40k price point. IRS would be nice to have as long as it's better than the existing solid axle setup, but it may not be worth the money.

i'm trying to keep an open mind here about a live axle in a high performance vehicle....but it's difficult for me to not be somewhat of a techno-chauvinist on this issue. i can at least see both sides of the pushrod issue but not so much this one.

other than drag racing.

[blee]

Well, we're also talking about a Mustang here. Ford already has their high-performance supercar, and I imagine they're not really trying to compete against the Corvette. The idea is to sell an inexpensive car that looks good and goes really fast. I know that SVT will up the ante, and that perhaps people will expect the "Cobra" to stack up against a Vette, but that's a bit like comparing an STi to a Porsche. Doable but not quite right.

[JST]

Live axles have their disadvantages, but manufacturers have given them amazing tractability. A modern solid rear may never be as tractable on pockmarked roads as an IRS, but it will be more than tolerable. The solid axle is also much easier to launch (a favorite Mustang activity) and safer to do so. Finally, it's less expensive.

My guess is that, if the IRS is truly missing from the SVT model, it's because Ford is trying to stick to the sub-$40k price point. IRS would be nice to have as long as it's better than the existing solid axle setup, but it may not be worth the money.

i'm trying to keep an open mind here about a live axle in a high performance vehicle....but it's difficult for me to not be somewhat of a techno-chauvinist on this issue. i can at least see both sides of the pushrod issue but not so much this one.

other than drag racing.

Why not? The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Live axles do have a set of significant advantages over independent suspensions. To the extent that they can be made to work as well or nearly as well as an independent rear, there's no reason to prejudge the car based on this technology.

Case in point--the Mustang GT v. the GTO. The GTO has IRS; the Mustang doesn't. The Mustang feels, to my mind, much better composed over nearly every surface than does the GTO. Ah, you say, but the GTO is an old platform. My response is the CTS-V, which is a perfectly fine setup for everything except putting the power down hard. That isn't just a drag racing issue--it's also a road racing issue, and it's one I bet that even a 470 hp SVT Mustaing with a live axle won't have.

Now, I agree that a well-designed IRS is "better" than even the best live axle, so long as your criteria for "better" doesn't include cost. The BMW Z-axle is a great design, but is very spendy. The question is, can Ford build the kind of IRS you'd need to handle 470 hp well, and still do it at a price point that makes the SVT Mustang something more than a dealer lot ornament? I don't know the answer to that, but if the answer is no, bring on the live axle SVT.

[lemming]

Live axles have their disadvantages, but manufacturers have given them amazing tractability. A modern solid rear may never be as tractable on pockmarked roads as an IRS, but it will be more than tolerable. The solid axle is also much easier to launch (a favorite Mustang activity) and safer to do so. Finally, it's less expensive.

My guess is that, if the IRS is truly missing from the SVT model, it's because Ford is trying to stick to the sub-$40k price point. IRS would be nice to have as long as it's better than the existing solid axle setup, but it may not be worth the money.

i'm trying to keep an open mind here about a live axle in a high performance vehicle....but it's difficult for me to not be somewhat of a techno-chauvinist on this issue. i can at least see both sides of the pushrod issue but not so much this one.

other than drag racing.

Why not? The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Live axles do have a set of significant advantages over independent suspensions. To the extent that they can be made to work as well or nearly as well as an independent rear, there's no reason to prejudge the car based on this technology.

Case in point--the Mustang GT v. the GTO. The GTO has IRS; the Mustang doesn't. The Mustang feels, to my mind, much better composed over nearly every surface than does the GTO. Ah, you say, but the GTO is an old platform. My response is the CTS-V, which is a perfectly fine setup for everything except putting the power down hard. That isn't just a drag racing issue--it's also a road racing issue, and it's one I bet that even a 470 hp SVT Mustaing with a live axle won't have.

Now, I agree that a well-designed IRS is "better" than even the best live axle, so long as your criteria for "better" doesn't include cost. The BMW Z-axle is a great design, but is very spendy. The question is, can Ford build the kind of IRS you'd need to handle 470 hp well, and still do it at a price point that makes the SVT Mustang something more than a dealer lot ornament? I don't know the answer to that, but if the answer is no, bring on the live axle SVT.

i usually care not about the means to the end, but that the end is meaningful; so usually i am less sensitive to the "how" as long as the end result is fast.

i only have experience with the circa 99 mustangs (GT guise) at bondurant for the 4 day gig. i didn't really have a problem with that as much as i did the rest of the car. :-)

but i can say from my experience with semi-trailing rear arm setups (M coupe and STi and WRX) i'm not a huge fan. i knwo there are serious reliability issues with ford, the mustang and lots of power with regard to IRS setups.

i think it's academic until final spec is released and i'll wait and see how the car does on a road course. that ocmparison is inevitable to come.

[stuka]

The new Mustang look does nothing for me.

I have driven quite a few Cobra/SVT, whatever they are called from the last two iterations.

How much does the shifter suck?

The rest of the cars sucked so very hard that I was willing to overlook the HP disadvantage of my then 98 M3 with its hamster powered anemic 240HP engine.

It couldn't stop, it couldn't turn, and boy does it have structural issues.

It did go sideways very well and very easily.

[Jason C]

The new Mustang look does nothing for me.

I have driven quite a few Cobra/SVT, whatever they are called from the last two iterations.

How much does the shifter suck?

The rest of the cars sucked so very hard that I was willing to overlook the HP disadvantage of my then 98 M3 with its hamster powered anemic 240HP engine.

It couldn't stop, it couldn't turn, and boy does it have structural issues.

It did go sideways very well and very easily.

So have you driven the new one?

[JST]

The new Mustang look does nothing for me.

I have driven quite a few Cobra/SVT, whatever they are called from the last two iterations.

How much does the shifter suck?

The rest of the cars sucked so very hard that I was willing to overlook the HP disadvantage of my then 98 M3 with its hamster powered anemic 240HP engine.

It couldn't stop, it couldn't turn, and boy does it have structural issues.

It did go sideways very well and very easily.

All of the issues you identify have been fixed in the new car. Criticizing the new car for the failings of the old is like saying that the E46 M3 does nothing for you because the E21 320i you drove wasn't that impressive--the difference is nearly that dramatic.

That said, I don't necessarily encourage you to drive a new one. I am certain you would not like it. Not expensive enough.

[clyde]

The new Mustang look does nothing for me.

I have driven quite a few Cobra/SVT, whatever they are called from the last two iterations.

How much does the shifter suck?

The rest of the cars sucked so very hard that I was willing to overlook the HP disadvantage of my then 98 M3 with its hamster powered anemic 240HP engine.

It couldn't stop, it couldn't turn, and boy does it have structural issues.

It did go sideways very well and very easily.

All of the issues you identify have been fixed in the new car. Criticizing the new car for the failings of the old is like saying that the E46 M3 does nothing for you because the E21 320i you drove wasn't that impressive--the difference is nearly that dramatic.

That said, I don't necessarily encourage you to drive a new one. I am certain you would not like it. Not expensive enough.

However, it doesn't use pushrods, so... :dunno:

Seriously, the only item on your list that has any relevance is that you don't dig the new styling. The rest is as JST said. The new Mustang is a brand car. The SVT version will use a completely different drivetrain than the old.

[JST]

The new Mustang look does nothing for me.

I have driven quite a few Cobra/SVT, whatever they are called from the last two iterations.

How much does the shifter suck?

The rest of the cars sucked so very hard that I was willing to overlook the HP disadvantage of my then 98 M3 with its hamster powered anemic 240HP engine.

It couldn't stop, it couldn't turn, and boy does it have structural issues.

It did go sideways very well and very easily.

All of the issues you identify have been fixed in the new car. Criticizing the new car for the failings of the old is like saying that the E46 M3 does nothing for you because the E21 320i you drove wasn't that impressive--the difference is nearly that dramatic.

That said, I don't necessarily encourage you to drive a new one. I am certain you would not like it. Not expensive enough.

However, it doesn't use pushrods, so... :dunno:

Seriously, the only item on your list that has any relevance is that you don't dig the new styling. The rest is as JST said. The new Mustang is a brand car. The SVT version will use a completely different drivetrain than the old.

But it will have a pickup truck engine. Hell, with a live axle, it might as well BE an F-150.