Automobile is highly skeptical of the Shelby Mustang.

[lemming]

Because of the live axle rear suspension.

They admit up front that they've yet to drive the car.

I know there are plenty of takers on paper for this car, but who actually buys this car, at 39,000?

That is my question --if you think the corvette is crude.....

[clyde]

They are going to be stacked up around the block 27 times around and 43 deep to buy at $39k, sticker or not.

[ride365]

i'm not a subscriber to the american muscle philosophy -- even vettes -- but that car gets me excited.

[lemming]

i am the one person who has to be skeptical because i've pretty much bought into a franchise that includes transverse leaf springs (with double wishbones front and rear) and pushrod actuators.

it all depends on execution.

the semi-trailing rear arm on the M coupe sucked. no, really, it did. anyone who says otherwise hasn't been to the limits and beyond (1) or is living in denial.

the STA rear on the STi also sucked. the twist bear rear on the mark III GTIvr6 also sucked.

so, a priori, there is plenty of reason to worry with the new shelby and i can see where automobile magazine is coming from but i'm open-minded enough to have a wait and see attitude.

to me, it's the porsche versus ferrari argument. this is a strange metaphor, but bear with me. ferraris, as the shelby mustang will be (and the cobra type R before it), are nasty in the sense that they are basically unattainable due to supply and demand. if you can get 'em, they're nice enough cars and well worth the wait presumably. but porsche 911 (even the GT3's and GT2's), like corvettes, are pretty darn easy to get. and you'd be hardpressed to find performance space between the 911 turbo and any ferrari. the weakness in this metaphor is the cost delta.

the 911 turbo is spectacular in how inexpensive it actually is, especially relative to the cost of the Ford GT and 430 modena. the corvette is more expensive, on paper, than a shelby cobra. but logic says dealer markup will take the shelby cobra to 45,000. i can get a c6 z51 for 45,000 TODAY or any day of the year for the next 5 years.

ergo, i fail to grasp the shelby cobra appeal.

[clyde]

ergo, i fail to grasp the shelby cobra appeal.

450+ HP
450+ TQ

< $40k

Styling that is objectively appealing to a large number of people (regardless of whether it works for you or not).

I fail to grasp why you don't see the appeal.

[lemming]

ergo, i fail to grasp the shelby cobra appeal.

450+ HP
450+ TQ

< $40k

Styling that is objectively appealing to a large number of people (regardless of whether it works for you or not).

I fail to grasp why you don't see the appeal.

but you're the one who raised the point of limited supply and dealer markup. therefore, the street price of the car will be $45,000.

even if it has that much power, it is still a solid rear axle and weighs 3650 pounds --and it's $45,000 which is what people can get a non-constrained car for.

[clyde]

but you're the one who raised the point of limited supply and dealer markup. therefore, the street price of the car will be $45,000.

even if it has that much power, it is still a solid rear axle and weighs 3650 pounds --and it's $45,000 which is what people can get a non-constrained car for.

Even at $45k, the car will be a lot more "special" than a C6 Z51. You can actually put two or three full size people in the back seat of the Mustang for a trip to lunch or dinner. Like the Corvette, 911, any Ferarri or other exotic or semi exotic...the Mustang has generated it's own history, culture, and symbolic meaning as it has carved its way into millions upon millions of people over time. Unlike the others, though, it has done so without snobbery, elitism or looking down on other makes/models (with the exception of the GM F body cars/owners/supporters, but that's different :P).

More importantly, and to the point, it has generated that following by being attainable in it's most basic form. It hasn't been called a secretary's car for nothing. The most basic models have always been priced below the average new car price. In that sense, it's been an affordable car with subjectively good looks through most of its run. That is was able to not only survive for so many years up against threatened and planned extinction, competition from GM and the Japanese but actually thrive —all while riding on that godawful Fox chassis platform — is a testament to how much that car is woven into the fabric of American society. And it did it on the back of the cheap, base model POS secretary's car. Why? How? becuase the car was attarctive, stylish, etc, sure...but also becuase there was some kind of kick ass bad boy motherfucker on top of the hill that they all aspired to be. The vast majority of Mustang owners have aspired to be owners of that kick ass bad boy motherfucker on top of the hill...and they continue to want to be an owner of that kick ass bad boy motherfucker on top of the hill for the rest of their natural born lives.

You don't have to get it, and in fact, I prefer that you don't. It means that you be in front of my when I finally get my ass in line.

I'm also terribly amused by those condemning the live axle setup without having driven it (or even it's closest relative, the new Mustang GT). It reminds a lot of those dismissing SMG without having driven one, or even better...those dismissing certain engines because they use certain parts (pushrods) and cheat by using larger displacement than other engines.

I'm not suggesting that it's as good as an IRS setup would be in certain applications that mean stuff to some of you, but you have to keep in mind that, cost no object, 1) the live axle setup is the better choice for far more potnetial buyers (based on previous buyers) than IRS, 2) the actual vast, vast majority of buyers won't ever be able to really discern the difference in any situation that they get into and 3) from all the rumors swirling, it still sounds like IRS as an option will be available at some point before the current waiting lists are all served.

[Jason C]

kick ass bad boy motherfucker

Anyone else in favor of a new user title for clyde?

[TD]

Clyde can have my spot in line.

[clyde]

Thanks. I'll make up a screaming chicken magnet in honor of your former ride of choice to stick on it for the show. :bigpimp:

[lemming]

but you're the one who raised the point of limited supply and dealer markup. therefore, the street price of the car will be $45,000.

even if it has that much power, it is still a solid rear axle and weighs 3650 pounds --and it's $45,000 which is what people can get a non-constrained car for.

Even at $45k, the car will be a lot more "special" than a C6 Z51. You can actually put two or three full size people in the back seat of the Mustang for a trip to lunch or dinner. Like the Corvette, 911, any Ferarri or other exotic or semi exotic...the Mustang has generated it's own history, culture, and symbolic meaning as it has carved its way into millions upon millions of people over time. Unlike the others, though, it has done so without snobbery, elitism or looking down on other makes/models (with the exception of the GM F body cars/owners/supporters, but that's different :P).

More importantly, and to the point, it has generated that following by being attainable in it's most basic form. It hasn't been called a secretary's car for nothing. The most basic models have always been priced below the average new car price. In that sense, it's been an affordable car with subjectively good looks through most of its run. That is was able to not only survive for so many years up against threatened and planned extinction, competition from GM and the Japanese but actually thrive —all while riding on that godawful Fox chassis platform — is a testament to how much that car is woven into the fabric of American society. And it did it on the back of the cheap, base model POS secretary's car. Why? How? becuase the car was attarctive, stylish, etc, sure...but also becuase there was some kind of kick ass bad boy motherfucker on top of the hill that they all aspired to be. The vast majority of Mustang owners have aspired to be owners of that kick ass bad boy motherfucker on top of the hill...and they continue to want to be an owner of that kick ass bad boy motherfucker on top of the hill for the rest of their natural born lives.

You don't have to get it, and in fact, I prefer that you don't. It means that you be in front of my when I finally get my ass in line.

I'm also terribly amused by those condemning the live axle setup without having driven it (or even it's closest relative, the new Mustang GT). It reminds a lot of those dismissing SMG without having driven one, or even better...those dismissing certain engines because they use certain parts (pushrods) and cheat by using larger displacement than other engines.

I'm not suggesting that it's as good as an IRS setup would be in certain applications that mean stuff to some of you, but you have to keep in mind that, cost no object, 1) the live axle setup is the better choice for far more potnetial buyers (based on previous buyers) than IRS, 2) the actual vast, vast majority of buyers won't ever be able to really discern the difference in any situation that they get into and 3) from all the rumors swirling, it still sounds like IRS as an option will be available at some point before the current waiting lists are all served.

but i've owned enough cars in my life to know that if you start a priori with suboptimal parts, be it suspension or curb weight or rigidity --horsepower cannot cover that up.

this is the way that i interpret Automobile's preview article and also suits my current bias. $45,000 for a "secretary's car" is a lot of money. let's face it, that whole argument about needing to fit people in the backseat is a moot one for me so it barely holds water with me. i don't, in fact, know many people for whom this is a priority for their high performance car.

that it is attainable in GT form is fully understandable, but again, that is a $25,000 car. the shelby is a $45,000 car. it's pretty obvious from the markup that went on with the cobra R variant that this vehicle will not sell for less than msrp and we're pretty much guaranteed markup.

if you think $45k is well spent on this car, then you're right, i don't get it and i never threatened the mob forming the line behind it. to me, it does not suit my performance metrics.

for $45k, i could get a c6 z51 (no snobbery here, this is fact) that can lap the one of the benchmark test tracks at about 8 minutes flat and it's easily attainable at any chevy dealer in the USofA. so, from my point of view, the faster car costs the same money, i have no idea why any auto magazine would dare say that the shelby cobra is going to step into corvette territory. that's ludicrous because once any track turns from the backstraight into the part where there are turns, that added mass is a huge deficit on the undertired shelby.

i am not one to dismiss the solid rear axle out of hand, but from my own experience with independent rear suspensions with trailing arms, i'm not predisposed to think highly of the mustang at the limits. sorry. that's my empiric train of evidence. you're making this an emotional argument and for me, it's still about the numbers.

[John V]

the STA rear on the STi also sucked. the twist bear rear on the mark III GTIvr6 also sucked.


What kind of STi has a semi trailing arm rear?

'cuz it's not the Subaru STi, which has chapman struts out back.

Just curious.

JV

[lemming]

the STA rear on the STi also sucked. the twist bear rear on the mark III GTIvr6 also sucked.


What kind of STi has a semi trailing arm rear?

'cuz it's not the Subaru STi, which has chapman struts out back.

Just curious.

JV

semantically, you are more accurate:

http://www.rallispec.com/sub_susparm.htm

trailing 'links' with struts at all four corners as opposed to the typical 3 series struts up front and multilink rears.

[clyde]

you're making this an emotional argument

Remember your original statement: "i fail to grasp the shelby cobra appeal." It's been explained (accurately or not, take your pick), you either still don't understand why it appeals to so many people or you don't...which is totally separate from whether it appeals to you for those or any other reasons.

and for me, it's still about the numbers.

which is the same reason that power per unit of displacement "matters."

You can build your own car with better numbers for less money if it's the numbers that are actually important to you. But you probably want something that is reasonable to commute in, run errands in, maybe take a trip or two now and then, you might have a wife and kid, probably want it to meet safety and emission regulations (or close eough) that you can tag it, fit and finish might matter, maybe an earliuer version lit a fire in your belly, maybe the cool high school kid had one and you didn't, maybe you got your whick wet in one for the first time, maybe this, maybe that...

It's never just about numbers unless it's about winning...

[lemming]

you're making this an emotional argument

Remember your original statement: "i fail to grasp the shelby cobra appeal." It's been explained (accurately or not, take your pick), you either still don't understand why it appeals to so many people or you don't...which is totally separate from whether it appeals to you for those or any other reasons.

and for me, it's still about the numbers.

which is the same reason that power per unit of displacement "matters."

You can build your own car with better numbers for less money if it's the numbers that are actually important to you. But you probably want something that is reasonable to commute in, run errands in, maybe take a trip or two now and then, you might have a wife and kid, probably want it to meet safety and emission regulations (or close eough) that you can tag it, fit and finish might matter, maybe an earliuer version lit a fire in your belly, maybe the cool high school kid had one and you didn't, maybe you got your whick wet in one for the first time, maybe this, maybe that...

It's never just about numbers unless it's about winning...

$45,000 is still a lot of jack for MOST people. it's a damn lot of money for a mustang; you would admit that, right?

the appeal delta between the $25k GT and the $45k shelby GT500......most people would ogle the shelby GT500 but they ain't going home in it. it's like of like paying $100,000 for a corvette. it's nice to look at, it has zero appeal, and most will go home in the base car.

[clyde]

$45,000 is still a lot of jack for MOST people. it's a damn lot of money for a mustang; you would admit that, right?

the appeal delta between the $25k GT and the $45k shelby GT500......most people would ogle the shelby GT500 but they ain't going home in it. it's like of like paying $100,000 for a corvette. it's nice to look at, it has zero appeal, and most will go home in the base car.

Just like only a few people are going to go home with a C6 Z06. Of course price matters.

The car doesn't appeal to you. Like that comes as a surprise to anyone here. What I am having trouble understanding is why you appear to be refusing to accept the fact that many people don't feel the same as you on this subject. :dunno:

[lemming]

don't be ridiculous.

we're not talking about the population at large.

i'm talking about people here. why would people HERE be interested is something that is difficult to fathom. let's suspend disbelief for a minute to think that you wouldn't have access to the xiT and "need" the mustang to port your progeny around; i really doubt if that was high on your list of priorities that you'd choose the mustang, actually.

and let's get down to brass tacks. so, you'd actually want to autocross this 3650 pound beast then? okay. i'm really sure that it handles as well or better than your rx8.

again, the rhetorical question is still out there. i understand why people out there would find the car appealing, but you're a car educated person. you don't go to the drag strip and it's actually important to you that a car handles well because the autox is less about outright speed than it is transient handling and braking. would you really expect the mustang to do that as well as the rx8?

see, i really doubt that. and if mazdaspeed makes a mazdaspeed rx8, i'd happily buy that to counterbalance any shelby gt500 purchase you would make and drive it down there just so you could drive the two cars back to back. i'd buy a car i have smallish interest in owning just to prove that point.

because in the end, numbers are important to me and they don't often lie as much as subjectivity does. if subjectivity mattered to me or owning a car that i longed for in high school, i'd own the ultimate poseur car, a lamborghini.

[clyde]

don't be ridiculous.

we're not talking about the population at large.

i'm talking about people here. why would people HERE be interested is something that is difficult to fathom.

The people here? WTF?!

The people here that buy 4 door E36 M3s and those that pine for 4 door E46 Tourings? The ones here that buy CTS-Vs or come damn close to it? The ones here that take out 2 year leases on final year of production E46 330is when the automotive world within reason is available to them? The ones that hop around from STi to a wagon to a Z06 to ??? on a moment's notice? The ones here that spend months agonizing over a car replacement question and then buy something totally different at the last instant with next to no thinking?

Those are the ones that I'm talking about.

and let's get down to brass tacks. so, you'd actually want to autocross this 3650 pound beast then? okay. i'm really sure that it handles as well or better than your rx8.

If it's class competitive, I'd love to. How it stands up to the RX-8 only matters to me if both cars are in the same class, else, each is considered on its own withint he context of its own world.

Honestly, if I can find something competitive to codrive for the next couple years, I'd give up the RX-8 for a Mustang GT just as soon as I could get a GT delivered...and I would only hold onto the GT for as long as needed to take delivery of a GT500.

Frankly, I'm tired of trying to make one car be all things for me. I want a competition car for competition. I want a street car for the street. And never the twain should meet.

Balance and feel are nice, but ultimately the only number that really counts is the one on the timer. Whatever it takes to get there with the smallest number is okay with me.

you don't go to the drag strip

Only becuase I don't have the right car for it. I'm pretty sure that I'd buy a second set of rear wheels with drag radials if I bought a Mustang (GT or higher).

and it's actually important to you that a car handles well because the autox is less about outright speed than it is transient handling and braking. would you really expect the mustang to do that as well as the rx8?

The Mustang will likely feel like a big fat pig being made to perform unnatural acts on an autocross course...but so long as it's quick, who cares? It's a different experience, a different challenge to master...and that's what I'm in it for. It doesn't matter what the car can do if I can't extract it.

because in the end, numbers are important to me and they don't often lie as much as subjectivity does. if subjectivity mattered to me or owning a car that i longed for in high school, i'd own the ultimate poseur car, a lamborghini.

Subjectivity does not lie...unless you're lying to yourself.

[ride365]

i'm talking about people here. why would people HERE be interested is something that is difficult to fathom.

well since i feel singled out as the only one who has expressed interest in this car in this thread, i'll try to give you a reason even though i haven't really given it that much thought. i like the idea of that much power from a motor with that kind of lineage in a car with that much history and that kind of rear axle is actually part of the appeal as well. why would i want a live axle? i dunno, for the challenge and the satisfaction that i would be controlling traction with my right foot.

i'm prolly not your typical carmudge though. most of the technical and historical disussion in this thread is beyond my experience or interest. that car is really not the type of thing i would normally go for, and yet it does make me stop and think about my checkbook.

so you know where i'm coming from, i don't autox and i've put my tracking on indefinite hiatus. i enjoy the stock diff in my e30 non-is, and i go out of my way to ride motorcycles in the rain.

[lemming]

Snyde:

i was worried until that bit where you've given up on trying to make one car do all things.

okay. i get it then.

:)

i'm not a huge fan of people trying to make one car do all things because it's just not compatible to make something that goes vroom vroom or zoom zoom also be practical and to do it well and to do it with amenities.

it will be definitely interesting to see how the mustang plays out --it already, unlike the notorious Ford GT, done a proof of concept by having won its class in sanctioned racing.

[John V]

re: autocrossing a mustang

If it's class competitive, I'd love to. How it stands up to the RX-8 only matters to me if both cars are in the same class, else, each is considered on its own within the context of its own world.

This is a really good point. Y'know, it is possible to like wagons AND sports cars AND muscle cars AND family sedans... this partially is the reason I still have my M3. It's a killer street car. Roomy, torquey, cheap to insure and put gas in, reasonably quick. I can autocross the RX-8 AND have a street car I like. Variety being what it is as applied to life...


Frankly, I'm tired of trying to make one car be all things for me. I want a competition car for competition. I want a street car for the street. And never the twain should meet.

Agreed, to an extent. Ideally I think my current "dream car" is a street modified RX-8. Supercharged, stiffly sprung, loud, obnoxious. It would be a miserable street car.

At the same token though there is something about driving a car every day and also competing in it. You get a feel on the street for how the car turns, brakes, and accelerates - even if it's at 3/10ths and not 10/10ths. It really helps to drive that competition car every day. Hm... think I may have another excuse here... :rolleyes:

The Mustang will likely feel like a big fat pig being made to perform unnatural acts on an autocross course...but so long as it's quick, who cares? It's a different experience, a different challenge to master...and that's what I'm in it for. It doesn't matter what the car can do if I can't extract it.
I understand the appeal of wanting to win in vastly different cars, but the idea of autocrossing a mustang still isn't tremendously appealing to me. Caveat: I haven't driven one of the new ones yet. It might be a decent handling car though (From all accounts, it appears to be - still waiting for grassroots motorsports to put one through the paces) so I guess I'll hold off on judgement.

I'll be 100% honest here - I have no desire to own a 3600lb Mustang, no matter how fast and how fun everyone says it is. I associate it with an E46 M3, which I think is one of the least fun cars I've ever driven. The cars that have been the most fun have been balanced and light. The RX-8 and the Elise top that list (yeah, I still think the RX-8 is more fun to drive than the Elise). My buddy's old 3rd gen RX-7 is next (~350hp, 2700lbs). Hm. All cars under 3,000lbs... :eeps:

[JST]

I'm a bit skeptical of the Shelby, too. My concern is not so much with the live axle as with the iron block; as I've said before, I'd rather they put in a 380ish hp N/A 5.4 with an aluminum block than the 450+ hp iron unit.

I still think the Mustang GT will be the RX-8 of F stock once they start getting into the hands of serious drivers (who are all likely waiting for the bigger wheels that will come in '06.)

[Jason C]

I'm a bit skeptical of the Shelby, too. My concern is not so much with the live axle as with the iron block; as I've said before, I'd rather they put in a 380ish hp N/A 5.4 with an aluminum block than the 450+ hp iron unit.

There's going to be a massive amount of special editions in the next few years, even Ford has admitted it in interviews and the like. Surely one of them will be just the configuration you'd like (Boss? Mach? I dunno).

[clyde]

There's going to be a massive amount of special editions in the next few years, even Ford has admitted it in interviews and the like. Surely one of them will be just the configuration you'd like (Boss? Mach? I dunno).

This is the part that scares me the most about the new Mustang and autocrossing. The GT may well be the car for FS next year. But if a special edition is out in the spring...it might be a little better. Or a 2007 GT with another 20 HP, slightly less weight (due to decontenting to keep the base price flat), revised spring rates that actually help for autocross, other improved suspension components, etc winds up being the car for 07-08.

Actually, that's the thing that scares me most about the land of the dinosaurs...continual small changes from model year to model year that can easily make the difference on the satage where I want to play. It's a risk in all stock classes, but the car types in some classes are more prone to it than others.

[Jason C]

There's going to be a massive amount of special editions in the next few years, even Ford has admitted it in interviews and the like. Surely one of them will be just the configuration you'd like (Boss? Mach? I dunno).

This is the part that scares me the most about the new Mustang and autocrossing. The GT may well be the car for FS next year. But if a special edition is out in the spring...it might be a little better. Or a 2007 GT with another 20 HP, slightly less weight (due to decontenting to keep the base price flat), revised spring rates that actually help for autocross, other improved suspension components, etc winds up being the car for 07-08.

Actually, that's the thing that scares me most about the land of the dinosaurs...continual small changes from model year to model year that can easily make the difference on the satage where I want to play. It's a risk in all stock classes, but the car types in some classes are more prone to it than others.

:dunno: In this case, I'd say after eliminating what you can't buy due to pricing and other concerns, get the car that appeals the most to you on a personal level. (And yes lemming, personal appeal still holds a lot of sway over objective #'s)


Ah, who am I to talk. You guys are all serial auto traders anyway, why does it even matter. :twisted:

[JST]

There's going to be a massive amount of special editions in the next few years, even Ford has admitted it in interviews and the like. Surely one of them will be just the configuration you'd like (Boss? Mach? I dunno).

This is the part that scares me the most about the new Mustang and autocrossing. The GT may well be the car for FS next year. But if a special edition is out in the spring...it might be a little better. Or a 2007 GT with another 20 HP, slightly less weight (due to decontenting to keep the base price flat), revised spring rates that actually help for autocross, other improved suspension components, etc winds up being the car for 07-08.

Actually, that's the thing that scares me most about the land of the dinosaurs...continual small changes from model year to model year that can easily make the difference on the satage where I want to play. It's a risk in all stock classes, but the car types in some classes are more prone to it than others.

I doubt that the kind of SE that we're talking about, with a bigger engine, would still be in FS, though what do I know? I'd think that'd be an AS car (like the current Cobra). As for the rest of that stuff, it's a risk in every class. I don't know that Mustangs are any more prone to it than any other car.

Anyway, given the way that the car is selling, you certainly won't see any big changes in 06 and I doubt that you'll see them in 07, either. Remember, the last GT was essentially unchanged for 5 years (99-04). And even if they do an SE in late 07, that'll still give you two years of competition in an 06 GT if you were to, say, buy one this fall.

[Rob]

If the CTS-V had a solid axle, it would not have the axle tramp problem that it does. Take it for what it's worth, but the one place that the wheel hop really does interfere with your life is at the drag stip.

That doesn't mean I wish it had a solid rear axle, but it does mean that there are benefits to using a live rear axle for that much power when you have a budget and limited amount of design time.

[John V]

If the CTS-V had a solid axle, it would not have the axle tramp problem that it does. Take it for what it's worth, but the one place that the wheel hop really does interfere with your life is at the drag stip.

That doesn't mean I wish it had a solid rear axle, but it does mean that there are benefits to using a live rear axle for that much power when you have a budget and limited amount of design time.
But there are plenty of IRS cars that have no axle tramp problems. My M3 doesn't, with a proper launch Clyde's RX-8 doesn't, the 'vette doesn't...

JV

[clyde]

The RX-8 does if you don't do it just right...and for the range where launch for the autocrosses, you happen to do it just right. I frequently don't.

[JST]

If the CTS-V had a solid axle, it would not have the axle tramp problem that it does. Take it for what it's worth, but the one place that the wheel hop really does interfere with your life is at the drag stip.

That doesn't mean I wish it had a solid rear axle, but it does mean that there are benefits to using a live rear axle for that much power when you have a budget and limited amount of design time.

Axle tramp can be a problem with live axle cars, too--the old Fox/Fairmont chassis was really terrible for this before they added the "Quadra-Shock" system in (clyde, help me out here) 1985?

Whether or not you get axle tramp is a function of the geometry of the suspension, not whether you are using a semi-trailing arm, multi-link, torsion bar, live axle, de Dion dead axle, or other means. The CTS suspension wasn't designed with the torque of the Z06 engine in mind, which is why it tramps--same as the Fairmont.*

The Mustang was built to a price. From what I've read, the engineers started with an IRS in mind, but found that designing an IRS strong enough to handle the various power combinations that were going to be under the Mustang's hood increased the unit price of the car enough to jeopardize the business case (which is one of the reasons that the S197 was delayed, apparently).

The live axle setup clearly is not ideal--no one is claiming that it is. But there is a reason that a 300 hp, 3400 lb Ford is $25K, and a 300 hp, 3400 lb BMW is $47K+.











*Yes, I just compared a CTS to a Fairmont. This is not as bad as my E30 M3/curved dash Olds comparo the other day, but it's close.

[clyde]

Axle tramp can be a problem with live axle cars, too--the old Fox/Fairmont chassis was really terrible for this before they added the "Quadra-Shock" system in (clyde, help me out here) 1985?

The Quadra Shock system started in the middle of the '84 model year when the SVO was introduced. Before that, they had slapper bars. :speechle:

[ff]

Axle tramp can be a problem with live axle cars, too--the old Fox/Fairmont chassis was really terrible for this before they added the "Quadra-Shock" system in (clyde, help me out here) 1985?


Fairmont? You mean the one with the 30 HP 4-cylinder? Wheel hop? We must be thinking of different fairmonts.

[clyde]

That chassis was the same platform the Mustang was built on from 1979-2004

[JST]

Axle tramp can be a problem with live axle cars, too--the old Fox/Fairmont chassis was really terrible for this before they added the "Quadra-Shock" system in (clyde, help me out here) 1985?


Fairmont? You mean the one with the 30 HP 4-cylinder? Wheel hop? We must be thinking of different fairmonts.

Wheel hop was not an issue with the Fairmont (to my knowledge); it only became a problem when the same suspension design was used with (relatively) high hp engines in the Mustang. I don't think a V8 was ever offered in the Fairmont. I'm not sure, off the top of my head, whether the LTD V8 (which used the same platform) had wheel hop issues or not.

The Quadra Shock system was remarkably effective at taming this problem, though--Fox body Mustangs with huge power could light up both wheels straight and true (at least until the LSD clutch packs let go) with nary a sign of tramp.

[Theo]

Axle tramp can be a problem with live axle cars, too--the old Fox/Fairmont chassis was really terrible for this before they added the "Quadra-Shock" system in (clyde, help me out here) 1985?


Fairmont? You mean the one with the 30 HP 4-cylinder? Wheel hop? We must be thinking of different fairmonts.

I don't think a V8 was ever offered in the Fairmont.


Yep it was. I remember the 5.0 badges and the single sided dual pipes from that years gt mustang. Here is a message board dedicvated to them. :P

http://groups.msn.com/FAIRMONT302/7883fordfairmontregistry.msnw

[JST]

Axle tramp can be a problem with live axle cars, too--the old Fox/Fairmont chassis was really terrible for this before they added the "Quadra-Shock" system in (clyde, help me out here) 1985?


Fairmont? You mean the one with the 30 HP 4-cylinder? Wheel hop? We must be thinking of different fairmonts.

I don't think a V8 was ever offered in the Fairmont.


Yep it was. I remember the 5.0 badges and the single sided dual pipes from that years gt mustang. Here is a message board dedicvated to them. :P

http://groups.msn.com/FAIRMONT302/7883fordfairmontregistry.msnw

Huh.

[Theo]

Axle tramp can be a problem with live axle cars, too--the old Fox/Fairmont chassis was really terrible for this before they added the "Quadra-Shock" system in (clyde, help me out here) 1985?


Fairmont? You mean the one with the 30 HP 4-cylinder? Wheel hop? We must be thinking of different fairmonts.

I don't think a V8 was ever offered in the Fairmont.


Yep it was. I remember the 5.0 badges and the single sided dual pipes from that years gt mustang. Here is a message board dedicvated to them. :P

http://groups.msn.com/FAIRMONT302/7883fordfairmontregistry.msnw

Huh.

You said you don't think the V8 was ever offered in the fairmont. I was just saying that it was. The link was to a message board I found dedicated to just that. Weird as it may be. ;)

[JST]

Axle tramp can be a problem with live axle cars, too--the old Fox/Fairmont chassis was really terrible for this before they added the "Quadra-Shock" system in (clyde, help me out here) 1985?


Fairmont? You mean the one with the 30 HP 4-cylinder? Wheel hop? We must be thinking of different fairmonts.

I don't think a V8 was ever offered in the Fairmont.


Yep it was. I remember the 5.0 badges and the single sided dual pipes from that years gt mustang. Here is a message board dedicvated to them. :P

http://groups.msn.com/FAIRMONT302/7883fordfairmontregistry.msnw

Huh.

You said you don't think the V8 was ever offered in the fairmont. I was just saying that it was. The link was to a message board I found dedicated to just that. Weird as it may be. ;)

No, I know. "Huh" was meant as an expression of mild surprise, like "what do you know?" or "what do you make of that?," not as "what were you trying to say?"